From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-lf1-f54.google.com (mail-lf1-f54.google.com [209.85.167.54]) (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 A57CD2853E9 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.54 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760717727; cv=none; b=akQXtvQtKp8vShufaHtkAhDzqQc1uUNVEa8zFgYk3/iYSQUtLyjERktXkDVXuUdOsaGQIyYQXZlGeFxyPpWZWd3oP2Uw+7V13beEhIwuIh9CJLuPTRy+LXmMenvJqVIdcAbwPocTKOhzzsGnIyL5tyj/jEjZPj2h1Nq+zawyXsg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1760717727; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oOo5BhNivO0kKJwKDjNTU2xGZSrSteum5coJjcca4KQ=; h=From:Date:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=enOqzYtsjaUSK69PuTHDvAGREAfcCijcLddrrFGQNPRjrW08rCFBac8NTAgrL8KPk+kk8TkOD99G4iuHE3L/e35hYqyNGf4TbQkTedYJKZG7Po9Hdwxgk4jXy2SNG1FhqcyYPtPq1ReqcYWqEMiPFneWSfQ0GeQJ5+LgeWUVEYc= 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=NwW9bIPI; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.167.54 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="NwW9bIPI" Received: by mail-lf1-f54.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-57f0aa38aadso2991238e87.2 for ; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 09:15:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1760717724; x=1761322524; 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=ngLRmK1oXthdQUYtmQtbPUF1dhiRRUALxIRLtMvIerU=; b=NwW9bIPIrI2NuHJVFGUXIKM2Y9IEnxg4rkAVk8aHgkG9zGgEHTAEXzAaG6d30xvcJs r2ZlCLltDCV74DYthawMLbHOtNIU+tzPUZ8y+ehsdesKwuLbs81AIKNV6/YF/D+JiX4F w6v5Vu+bUAG/Fq+xptruo3eucmYvDcPQpYwuqzBjYIcNL8PaWfiK/ZgsOnjoyaDakKqR yS6Q0aaHvsVnAK4Y0oMn7ECoSNxp1E33rVpiPqSm2UvZcKlgQcQIiXv9oEGfT9z+iP7A sUIfBf3D86UxfHH9hGQb8KIw9pDU9rwhpjcyAQBe7QWSYJKOtZQA/ui3qqjZBFMv+GxJ s1JA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1760717724; x=1761322524; 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=ngLRmK1oXthdQUYtmQtbPUF1dhiRRUALxIRLtMvIerU=; b=V20kq1/vILxLmyVtPy9q64P1i8RA15Ii49HfSCRYcXuXkoxo2xe/NEnciIAHHvepGp TB0vf6TuVsm805S7BXgzWjg2S1l8nOoL0aTmGtPfiqEy7QKfwNiDrZL/NDRpt1ykRZD1 LUjKVG/lLhrUSvw6csnv3ae1c6np3r8rBwfO79HbIm2gqIvA7JmCHUfvJYeoh5SSkjdD 022ss8dheI6L84//EO5U1oHBJr4j1aDyZcQ/MNk2koN8ZYYT85iBarXn0u5xQiXRDvJV ZWLzOdmY8LMX5544Vs3qJ7J0Fn2jMSrbr7KG2UCuEJ8H/C8PZNIaS7+Zue650lGfCKOB UC1A== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVAzks8FAy0nyYxle6vyCkl8jqCZPY+YSBv1a35b3KGBAbflyVk5bMA0GLAlXH2t/zgdBGXHB05uJqsPA4=@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx7+4XYAygtuKGMaJD2SaqmyY2a/E00RYBAd4U1xtWSXf2Kgr10 dqSDbhONCQYy3lHtnDQdJ1hEhEnCpgf5A9aMrIIAJy94SFN6Ih1kBCJZfZptPXjGhhg= X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncvOvWztKQ2pFlu+9rsEf7P562WAhA1wDP2+SdooLKu+VmUrw/17HFjexaPB+5J HWmo5qplYi2vvBTdPxncmU+GyFu9k/27g9hUbAyhAi7L7GulE4fhblWCQjmMEfqM3bvdOvDfSYj dz06pdlNc/ktBYHNPlCqhinsrLhAbhC9DoZhUuLHgGsqqwhvmuf630Zd3bRiG0hDozjkW3VKx7R EbQt5lFp+sUJr42rqvyDOp3gtw6LXIdGovjnDlC9d46ef0+PsXKYSsEiCRrLTMqTeFhWKr9hFS7 B5WdAcRcs2YMdE5R/ftxGniPPQdJrZTPXmphwaYzrikcbpvhTsBrISmV8QG+v9FMqRsFuGNHewu THHsw5zK40hiBY6UEcNYmlyRRXgMDFnMcV/d3MOOIdlveI59rSaisnV3A7kpYx9BG X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF4+HUifUUlo17HSCgYnNGk3aG8u5kLir6yEURWDm6jFdmspJdCdomosbkBnIZiFQb1BeuOoQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:118f:b0:591:c745:3024 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-591d85665d6mr1544436e87.43.1760717723485; Fri, 17 Oct 2025 09:15:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from milan ([2001:9b1:d5a0:a500::24b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 2adb3069b0e04-591deeaf49bsm24526e87.28.2025.10.17.09.15.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Fri, 17 Oct 2025 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Uladzislau Rezki X-Google-Original-From: Uladzislau Rezki Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:15:21 +0200 To: "Vishal Moola (Oracle)" Cc: Uladzislau Rezki , 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 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()... -- Uladzislau Rezki