From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 16:45:58 +0800
Message-ID: <20180427084558.GB4009@intel.com>
References: <cef85936-10b2-5d76-9f97-cb03b418fd94@mellanox.com>
 <20170915102320.zqceocmvvkyybekj@techsingularity.net>
 <d8cfaf8b-7601-2712-f9f2-8327c720db5a@mellanox.com>
 <1c218381-067e-7757-ccc2-4e5befd2bfc3@mellanox.com>
 <20180421081505.GA24916@intel.com>
 <127df719-b978-60b7-5d77-3c8efbf2ecff@mellanox.com>
 <0dea4da6-8756-22d4-c586-267217a5fa63@mellanox.com>
 <20180423131033.GA13792@intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
        David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:25059 "EHLO mga02.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932282AbeD0Ioi (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 27 Apr 2018 04:44:38 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180423131033.GA13792@intel.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:10:33PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I ran my tests with your patches.
> > Initial BW numbers are significantly higher than I documented back then in
> > this mail-thread.
> > For example, in driver #2 (see original mail thread), with 6 rings, I now
> > get 92Gbps (slightly less than linerate) in comparison to 64Gbps back then.
> > 
> > However, there were many kernel changes since then, I need to isolate your
> > changes. I am not sure I can finish this today, but I will surely get to it
> > next week after I'm back from vacation.
> > 
> > Still, when I increase the scale (more rings, i.e. more cpus), I see that
> > queued_spin_lock_slowpath gets to 60%+ cpu. Still high, but lower than it
> > used to be.
> 
> I wonder if it is on allocation path or free path?

Just FYI, I have pushed two more commits on top of the branch.
They should improve free path zone lock contention for MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE
pages(most kernel code alloc such pages), you may consider apply them if
free path contention is a problem.