From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Joonsoo Kim <js1304@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/slub: don't wait for high-order page allocation
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 15:15:26 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150804131525.GC28571@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1438304990-22276-1-git-send-email-iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
On Fri 31-07-15 10:09:50, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> Almost description is copied from commit fb05e7a89f50
> ("net: don't wait for order-3 page allocation").
>
> I saw excessive direct memory reclaim/compaction triggered by slub.
> This causes performance issues and add latency. Slub uses high-order
> allocation to reduce internal fragmentation and management overhead. But,
> direct memory reclaim/compaction has high overhead and the benefit of
> high-order allocation can't compensate the overhead of both work.
>
> This patch makes auxiliary high-order allocation atomic. If there is
> no memory pressure and memory isn't fragmented, the alloction will still
> success, so we don't sacrifice high-order allocation's benefit here.
But you are also giving those allocations access to a portion of the
memory reserves which doesn't sound like an intenteded behavior here.
At least the changelog doesn't imply anything like that.
I am not oppposed to your patch but I think we should do something about
the !__GFP_WAIT behavior. This is too subtle and the mere fact the
caller doesn't want or cannot sleep doesn't make it a reserve consumer
automatically. We have __GFP_HIGH for that purpose. If this is not
desirable because of the regression risk then we might need a new gfp
flag for a best effort allocation which will fail in case we have to
dive into costly reclaim.
> If the atomic allocation fails, direct memory reclaim/compaction will not
> be triggered, allocation fallback to low-order immediately, hence
> the direct memory reclaim/compaction overhead is avoided. In the
> allocation failure case, kswapd is waken up and trying to make high-order
> freepages, so allocation could success next time.
>
> Following is the test to measure effect of this patch.
>
> System: QEMU, CPU 8, 512 MB
> Mem: 25% memory is allocated at random position to make fragmentation.
> Memory-hogger occupies 150 MB memory.
> Workload: hackbench -g 20 -l 1000
>
> Average result by 10 runs (Base va Patched)
>
> elapsed_time(s): 4.3468 vs 2.9838
> compact_stall: 461.7 vs 73.6
> pgmigrate_success: 28315.9 vs 7256.1
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index 257283f..2d02a36 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1364,6 +1364,8 @@ static struct page *allocate_slab(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags, int node)
> * so we fall-back to the minimum order allocation.
> */
> alloc_gfp = (flags | __GFP_NOWARN | __GFP_NORETRY) & ~__GFP_NOFAIL;
> + if ((alloc_gfp & __GFP_WAIT) && oo_order(oo) > oo_order(s->min))
> + alloc_gfp = alloc_gfp & ~__GFP_WAIT;
>
> page = alloc_slab_page(s, alloc_gfp, node, oo);
> if (unlikely(!page)) {
> --
> 1.9.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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:[~2015-08-04 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-31 1:09 Joonsoo Kim
2015-08-04 13:15 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2015-08-07 1:45 ` 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=20150804131525.GC28571@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux.com \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=js1304@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
/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