From: Chen Wandun <chenwandun@huawei.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@suse.cz>,
<linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix pcp count beyond pcp high in pcplist allocation
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 20:46:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a62ed166-1929-e7da-feef-f3a4b1a2234e@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221101104040.o6gqtyyd5d4pkhle@techsingularity.net>
在 2022/11/1 18:40, Mel Gorman 写道:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:37:35AM +0800, Chen Wandun wrote:
>>>>> As is, the patch could result in a batch request of 0 and
>>>> I foget this, the patch need some improve, thanks.
>>>>
>>>>> fall through to allocating from the zone list anyway defeating the
>>>>> purpose of the PCP allocator and probably regressing performance in some
>>>>> csaes.
>>>> Same as I understand???how about set high/batch for each order in pcplist???
>>> Using anything would than (X >> order) consumes storage. Even if storage
>>> was to be used, selecting a value per-order would be impossible because
>>> the correct value would depend on frequency of requests for each order.
>>> That can only be determined at runtime and the cost of determining the
>>> value would likely exceed the benefit.
>> Can we set a experience value for pcp batch for each order during init
>> stage?
> I'm not sure what you mean by "experience value" but maybe you meant
> experimental value?
yes, experimental value, sorry for that.
>
>> If so we can make accurately control for pcp size. Nowdays, the size of each
>> order in pcp list is full of randomness. I dont konw which scheme is better
>> for performance.
>>
> It is something that could be experimented with but the main question is
> -- what should those per-order values be? One option would be to enforce
> pcp->high for all high-order values except THP if THP is enabled. That would
> limit some of the issues with pcp->high being exceeded as even if two THPs
> are refilled, one of them is allocated immediately. I wasn't convinced it was
> necessary when implementing high-order PCP support but it could be evaluated.
Thank you for your suggestion, I will do some tests.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-03 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-24 13:41 Chen Wandun
2022-10-24 14:55 ` Mel Gorman
2022-10-25 11:49 ` Chen Wandun
2022-10-25 13:19 ` Mel Gorman
2022-10-31 3:37 ` Chen Wandun
2022-11-01 10:40 ` Mel Gorman
2022-11-03 12:46 ` Chen Wandun [this message]
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=a62ed166-1929-e7da-feef-f3a4b1a2234e@huawei.com \
--to=chenwandun@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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