From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f52.google.com (mail-lf1-f52.google.com [209.85.167.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0F4C2FFDC8 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:19:20 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.52 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760721563; cv=none; b=BecTcc3K7P1mdiC5qJuxJvRA1Ypq0dTxpDkF6LXBS5QOs6SaSEXCqlyxNinw6p13vsNncOaBHezqwohYZ753/vY2FkpY/NqQ5EBQF/v0SO8qX+8BjeWsp+D1R38UkbHPDKUWDT9sPVeEQVEXRe9D5+CF9TYRO5y6oyK+lWsVFY0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760721563; c=relaxed/simple; bh=qicDVyeNt92wuALdVRPwGGTRoCBfAuIytTgnqL/VZqI=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ocsGGEIGEvZUpM8ZASkaiixBdfk7B29iprHjTNA/h25mVEKkLALLdrBiGfmJ/QWClBsvamzuRvAMTF222eCZwV2ebWPrc4bapif27Tq2briWtHxNN1Bzq1aHVoPusCWqJNZQ7ULWySc88ISznYcJEfhsOx9Ziqs1q9l2Gn06Wo4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=U9tKkjPr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.52 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="U9tKkjPr" Received: by mail-lf1-f52.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-57edfeaa05aso2490858e87.0 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:19:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1760721559; x=1761326359; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XL9gAVclE3lngHX2cLTVrJb1oTHIHA33oNB16rrMnlk=; b=U9tKkjPrefk3Yup/CuvysY2DjxZrMvaaux85Fh1Id/QO6QZ3y9i8jDGNg3+Ghr3QTE DI5Maz+RRVi5oO7nRUv/Aa42tyjzdJN720WIvXaPlDt54YJVwnZbh2dppgSk6MFQBGfY xjsZF/Kf4VYCAg1AmEhCKPV/cwQxbcVHIznGxHc4g22HQPWa8J1NNZCVpoNs+falKDWn tg2NeO/Ewq71LkZW/nOy0pxTYGcWBdNdO+BaF4quIyTk7YeYQuAS+ECwCuOyR9WUFSNF fZluGmy+E8tgNKgg8Yv+35weNOVwte01UjIy2k3sihoI8rh/XUAa5+Dt9ByKdRr5ntvg DENQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760721559; x=1761326359; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:date:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=XL9gAVclE3lngHX2cLTVrJb1oTHIHA33oNB16rrMnlk=; b=p2bg3kZn6sHOZutKx/ZWlwwXm4F/DmYS2Nlkr68CS6GxGqgg5cIyjUPpatPrXXpUJV hUVQiuGi3vVdTBrc22JW0XITWkYsvZqBsT4mFXn2OzPpc1Pf8aZ3SQE1IzfRUxb7dQIq QgGhuz1+/f0r7f6dqNknzv/qCpzKeTxBmHUjbh3ooS9GTi3Jc19BvuL4i7bQO/l0YbXP zBC1N+KWT2zBQ26KxOEpL+0a0SthAX3LVRbitd0QaRxAj+Jv0s0GsNdvOGgywCackAmw Wc9kfQzczRDRhCK63/Ubap8Dd0/7/AsIeNvHWZuLtoveD6Zlycw2MU44PRLFPdU9jUui WOGg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXC1gceI3jbnuRSmLIDPR7AuvkqBICxM0B3uZ016x+Wku8dGFqyqZ4xI7k3VDZpdAJ+s0tSGrnBv46cosE=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxS1mcn6r1Ug1XA1GouAUHgo1jaZNZmSJ7DgDGUVyoar/M7OITi LkARqRIf7VWx1ofwYObRG9bc1Kzp5KQNSPLSgrRcY/frmvg3r8EgIt3FjPznD8OB X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncuiil4KOG2MBWcgZXiz1Ls0M5Rj9hgBEY6vkVTYJ1vbZJLDefjAnToyr+PNrYn IiJK7RoLEM+Rp7UYs3hptuAaUTrykKBB7+iZj0kfdhfg8LP2H9QCDIDWHh85YJBPolUFKfQWbqp T5Kvf7AUeMlJI/j+b+OckFdZIq6/f2iMhCU0mvlG8mpZLKJfrPEiR657nEB9uSI4EAy77Vbtse8 6mkqj0I5bZpTei0x+YV3pIe/sJTbmVg1nvbVAQjWsUi5SLls/0nD+dPAGiJ+OypaeNgPKOgdKaF i5V+PtSoN2nEoIbhKyuf9lmFJnDEpZOmdhlIULBAUPPnMGns1JbqV2fp2ocqBbhHQcBtC4uEAI+ Wp4Zb4gX36J/wBq+ssdLTRoFa2yrnJun624UYH8KLmAbXXfhCiPhWnw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEJh1k63FP41WgVNhCjLX6axNuwSzkm8YuK2vtNhdoknX19jYuXL0p34J/QM8svaETz5NjFyw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:2397:b0:58b:27b:ed30 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-591d84fae4cmr1760705e87.22.1760721558398; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from milan ([2001:9b1:d5a0:a500::24b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-591def25a1csm58096e87.105.2025.10.17.10.19.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Oct 2025 10:19:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 19:19:16 +0200 To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" Cc: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" , Matthew Wilcox , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator Message-ID: References: <20251014182754.4329-1-vishal.moola@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 06:15:21PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 12:02:59PM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 10:42:04AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 06:12:36PM +0200, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 02:28:49AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 04:56:42AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 11:27:54AM -0700, Vishal Moola (Oracle) wrote: > > > > > > > Running 1000 iterations of allocations on a small 4GB system finds: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1000 2mb allocations: > > > > > > > [Baseline] [This patch] > > > > > > > real 46.310s real 34.380s > > > > > > > user 0.001s user 0.008s > > > > > > > sys 46.058s sys 34.152s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10000 200kb allocations: > > > > > > > [Baseline] [This patch] > > > > > > > real 56.104s real 43.946s > > > > > > > user 0.001s user 0.003s > > > > > > > sys 55.375s sys 43.259s > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 10000 20kb allocations: > > > > > > > [Baseline] [This patch] > > > > > > > real 0m8.438s real 0m9.160s > > > > > > > user 0m0.001s user 0m0.002s > > > > > > > sys 0m7.936s sys 0m8.671s > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd be more confident in the 20kB numbers if you'd done 10x more > > > > > > iterations. > > > > > > > > > > I actually ran my a number of times to mitigate the effects of possibly > > > > > too small sample sizes, so I do have that number for you too: > > > > > > > > > > [Baseline] [This patch] > > > > > real 1m28.119s real 1m32.630s > > > > > user 0m0.012s user 0m0.011s > > > > > sys 1m23.270s sys 1m28.529s > > > > > > > > > I have just had a look at performance figures of this patch. The test > > > > case is 16K allocation by one single thread, 1 000 000 loops, 10 run: > > > > > > > > sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh run_test_mask=1 nr_threads=1 nr_pages=4 > > > > > > The reason I didn't use this test module is the same concern Matthew > > > brought up earlier about testing the PCP list rather than buddy > > > allocator. The test module allocates, then frees over and over again, > > > making it incredibly prone to reuse the pages over and over again. > > > > > > > BOX: AMD Milan, 256 CPUs, 512GB of memory > > > > > > > > # default 16K alloc > > > > [ 15.823704] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 955334 usec > > > > [ 17.751685] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1158739 usec > > > > [ 19.443759] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1016522 usec > > > > [ 21.035701] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 911381 usec > > > > [ 22.727688] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 987286 usec > > > > [ 24.199694] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 955112 usec > > > > [ 25.755675] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 926393 usec > > > > [ 27.355670] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 937875 usec > > > > [ 28.979671] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1006985 usec > > > > [ 30.531674] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 941088 usec > > > > > > > > # the patch 16K alloc > > > > [ 44.343380] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2296849 usec > > > > [ 47.171290] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2014678 usec > > > > [ 50.007258] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2094184 usec > > > > [ 52.651141] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1953046 usec > > > > [ 55.455089] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2209423 usec > > > > [ 57.943153] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1941747 usec > > > > [ 60.799043] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2038504 usec > > > > [ 63.299007] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1788588 usec > > > > [ 65.843011] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2137055 usec > > > > [ 68.647031] Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2193022 usec > > > > > > > > 2X slower. > > > > > > > > perf-cycles, same test but on 64 CPUs: > > > > > > > > + 97.02% 0.13% [test_vmalloc] [k] fix_size_alloc_test > > > > - 82.11% 82.10% [kernel] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > 26.19% ret_from_fork_asm > > > > ret_from_fork > > > > - kthread > > > > - 25.96% test_func > > > > - fix_size_alloc_test > > > > - 23.49% __vmalloc_node_noprof > > > > - __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > > > > - 54.70% alloc_pages_noprof > > > > alloc_pages_mpol > > > > __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof > > > > get_page_from_freelist > > > > __rmqueue_pcplist > > > > - 5.58% __get_vm_area_node > > > > alloc_vmap_area > > > > - 20.54% vfree.part.0 > > > > - 20.43% __free_frozen_pages > > > > free_frozen_page_commit > > > > free_pcppages_bulk > > > > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > - 0.77% worker_thread > > > > - process_one_work > > > > - 0.76% vmstat_update > > > > refresh_cpu_vm_stats > > > > decay_pcp_high > > > > free_pcppages_bulk > > > > _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > > native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > + 76.57% 0.16% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > > > > + 71.62% 0.00% [kernel] [k] __vmalloc_node_noprof > > > > + 71.61% 0.58% [kernel] [k] __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > > > > + 62.35% 0.06% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_mpol > > > > + 62.27% 0.17% [kernel] [k] __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof > > > > + 62.20% 0.02% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_noprof > > > > + 62.10% 0.05% [kernel] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > > + 55.63% 0.19% [kernel] [k] __rmqueue_pcplist > > > > + 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork_asm > > > > + 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] ret_from_fork > > > > + 32.11% 0.00% [kernel] [k] kthread > > > > > > > > I would say the bottle-neck is a page-allocator. It seems high-order > > > > allocations are not good for it. > > > > Ah also just took a closer look at this. I realize that you also did 16k > > allocations (which is at most order-2), so it may not be a good > > representation of high-order allocations either. > > > I agree. But then we should not optimize "small" orders and focus on > highest ones. Because of double degrade. I assume stress-ng fork test > would alos notice this. > > > Plus that falls into the regression range I found that I detailed in > > response to Matthew elsewhere (I've copy pasted it here for reference) > > > > I ended up finding that allocating sizes <=20k had noticeable > > regressions, while [20k, 90k] was approximately the same, and >= 90k had > > improvements (getting more and more noticeable as size grows in > > magnitude). > > > Yes, i did 2-order allocations > > # default > + 35.87% 4.24% [kernel] [k] alloc_pages_bulk_noprof > + 31.94% 0.88% [kernel] [k] vfree.part.0 > - 27.38% 27.36% [kernel] [k] clear_page_rep > 27.36% ret_from_fork_asm > ret_from_fork > kthread > test_func > fix_size_alloc_test > __vmalloc_node_noprof > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > alloc_pages_bulk_noprof > clear_page_rep > > # patch > + 53.32% 1.12% [kernel] [k] get_page_from_freelist > + 49.41% 0.71% [kernel] [k] prep_new_page > - 48.70% 48.64% [kernel] [k] clear_page_rep > 48.64% ret_from_fork_asm > ret_from_fork > kthread > test_func > fix_size_alloc_test > __vmalloc_node_noprof > __vmalloc_node_range_noprof > alloc_pages_noprof > alloc_pages_mpol > __alloc_frozen_pages_noprof > get_page_from_freelist > prep_new_page > clear_page_rep > > i noticed it is because of clear_page_rep() which with patch consumes > double in cycles. > > Both versions should mostly go over pcp-cache, as far as i remember > order-2 is allowed to be cached. > > I wounder why the patch gives x2 of cycles to clear_page_rep()... > And here we go with some results "without" pcp exxecise: static int fix_size_alloc_test(void) { void **ptr; int i; if (set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(1)) < 0) pr_err("Failed to set affinity to %d CPU\n", 1); ptr = vmalloc(sizeof(void *) * test_loop_count); if (!ptr) return -1; for (i = 0; i < test_loop_count; i++) ptr[i] = vmalloc((nr_pages > 0 ? nr_pages:1) * PAGE_SIZE); for (i = 0; i < test_loop_count; i++) { if (ptr[i]) vfree(ptr[i]); } return 0; } time sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh run_test_mask=1 nr_threads=1 nr_pages=nr-pages-in-order # default order-1 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1423862 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1453518 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1451734 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1455142 usec # patch order-1 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1431082 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1454855 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1476372 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 1433379 usec # default order-2 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2198130 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2208504 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2219533 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2214151 usec # patch order-2 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2110344 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2044186 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2083308 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 2073572 usec # default order-3 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3718592 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3740495 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3737213 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3740765 usec # patch order-3 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3350391 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3374568 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3286374 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 3261335 usec # default order-6(64 pages) Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 23847773 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 24015706 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 24226268 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 24078102 usec # patch order-6 Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 20128225 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 19968964 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 20067469 usec Summary: fix_size_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 repeat: 1 loops: 1000000 avg: 19928870 usec Now i see that results align with my initial thoughts when i first time saw your patch. The question which is not clear for me still, why pcp case is doing better even for cached orders. Do you have any thoughts? -- Uladzislau Rezki