From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@huawei.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm, page_alloc: support multiple pages allocation
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 09:37:54 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130716003754.GB2430@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51E02F6E.1060303@sr71.net>
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 09:31:42AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/10/2013 11:12 PM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:38:20PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> You're probably right for small numbers of pages. But, if we're talking
> >> about things that are more than, say, 100 pages (isn't the pcp batch
> >> size clamped to 128 4k pages?) you surely don't want to be doing
> >> buffered_rmqueue().
> >
> > Yes, you are right.
> > Firstly, I thought that I can use this for readahead. On my machine,
> > readahead reads (maximum) 32 pages in advance if faulted. And batch size
> > of percpu pages list is close to or larger than 32 pages
> > on today's machine. So I didn't consider more than 32 pages before.
> > But to cope with a request for more pages, using rmqueue_bulk() is
> > a right way. How about using rmqueue_bulk() conditionally?
>
> How about you test it both ways and see what is faster?
It is not easy to test which one is better, because a difference may be
appeared on certain circumstances only. Do not grab the global lock
as much as possible is preferable approach to me.
>
> > Hmm, rmqueue_bulk() doesn't stop until all requested pages are allocated.
> > If we request too many pages (1024 pages or more), interrupt latency can
> > be a problem.
>
> OK, so only call it for the number of pages you believe allows it to
> have acceptable interrupt latency. If you want 200 pages, and you can
> only disable interrupts for 100 pages, then just do it in two batches.
>
> The point is that you want to avoid messing with the buffering by the
> percpu structures. They're just overhead in your case.
Okay.
Thanks.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-16 0:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-03 8:34 [RFC PATCH 0/5] Support " Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 8:34 ` [RFC PATCH 1/5] mm, page_alloc: support " Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 15:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-07-04 4:29 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-10 22:52 ` Dave Hansen
2013-07-11 1:02 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-11 5:38 ` Dave Hansen
2013-07-11 6:12 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-11 15:51 ` Dave Hansen
2013-07-16 0:26 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-12 16:31 ` Dave Hansen
2013-07-16 0:37 ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2013-07-03 8:34 ` [RFC PATCH 2/5] mm, page_alloc: introduce alloc_pages_exact_node_multiple() Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 8:34 ` [RFC PATCH 3/5] radix-tree: introduce radix_tree_[next/prev]_present() Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 8:34 ` [RFC PATCH 4/5] readahead: remove end range check Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 8:34 ` [RFC PATCH 5/5] readhead: support multiple pages allocation for readahead Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-03 15:28 ` [RFC PATCH 0/5] Support multiple pages allocation Michal Hocko
2013-07-03 15:51 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-07-03 16:01 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-07-04 4:24 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-04 10:00 ` Michal Hocko
2013-07-10 0:31 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-10 1:20 ` Zhang Yanfei
2013-07-10 9:56 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-10 9:17 ` Michal Hocko
2013-07-10 9:55 ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-10 11:27 ` Michal Hocko
2013-07-11 1:05 ` Joonsoo Kim
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20130716003754.GB2430@lge.com \
--to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=glommer@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jiang.liu@huawei.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox