From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f71.google.com (mail-pg0-f71.google.com [74.125.83.71]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF7066B028E for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:59:48 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-pg0-f71.google.com with SMTP id q2so1102182pgn.11 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:59:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de. [195.135.220.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t15si3255599pfg.333.2018.02.21.22.59.47 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Feb 2018 22:59:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:59:43 +0100 From: Michal Hocko Subject: Re: Use higher-order pages in vmalloc Message-ID: <20180222065943.GA30681@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <151670492223.658225.4605377710524021456.stgit@buzz> <151670493255.658225.2881484505285363395.stgit@buzz> <20180221154214.GA4167@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180221170129.GB27687@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180221170129.GB27687@bombadil.infradead.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Dave Hansen , Konstantin Khlebnikov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , "Kirill A. Shutemov" On Wed 21-02-18 09:01:29, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 08:16:22AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote: > > On 02/21/2018 07:42 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > This prompted me to write a patch I've been meaning to do for a while, > > > allocating large pages if they're available to satisfy vmalloc. I thought > > > it would save on touching multiple struct pages, but it turns out that > > > the checking code we currently have in the free_pages path requires you > > > to have initialised all of the tail pages (maybe we can make that code > > > conditional ...) > > > > What the concept here? If we can use high-order pages for vmalloc() at > > the moment, we *should* use them? > > Right. It helps with fragmentation if we can keep higher-order > allocations together. Hmm, wouldn't it help if we made vmalloc pages migrateable instead? That would help the compaction and get us to a lower fragmentation longterm without playing tricks in the allocation path. > > One of the coolest things about vmalloc() is that it can do large > > allocations without consuming large (high-order) pages, so it has very > > few side-effects compared to doing a bunch of order-0 allocations. This > > patch seems to propose removing that cool thing. Even trying the > > high-order allocation could kick off a bunch of reclaim and compaction > > that was not there previously. > > Yes, that's one of the debatable things. It'd be nice to have a GFP > flag that stopped after calling get_page_from_freelist() and didn't try > to do compaction or reclaim. GFP_NOWAIT, you mean? > > If you could take this an only _opportunistically_ allocate large pages, > > it could be a more universal win. You could try to make sure that no > > compaction or reclaim is done for the large allocation. Or, maybe you > > only try it if there are *only* high-order pages in the allocator that > > would have been broken down into order-0 *anyway*. > > > > I'm not sure it's worth it, though. I don't see a lot of folks > > complaining about vmalloc()'s speed or TLB impact. > > No, I'm not sure it's worth it either, although Konstantin's mail > suggesting improvements in fork speed were possible by avoiding vmalloc > reminded me that I'd been meaning to give this a try. Maybe we should consider kvmalloc for the kernel stack? -- 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: email@kvack.org