From: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>
To: "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Cc: Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com>,
"sumit.semwal@linaro.org" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
"daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
"akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"mhocko@kernel.org" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"jaewon31.kim@gmail.com" <jaewon31.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:56:46 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230125095646epcms1p2a97e403a9589ee1b74a3e7ac7d573f9b@epcms1p2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABdmKX3HFuaE0qwcADk-KLtVUdao-uhH-1zn4gv7ezq+bZE94w@mail.gmail.com>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:54 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:31 AM Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > > Using order 4 pages would be helpful for many IOMMUs, but it could spend
> > > > quite much time in page allocation perspective.
> > > >
> > > > The order 4 allocation with __GFP_RECLAIM may spend much time in
> > > > reclaim and compation logic. __GFP_NORETRY also may affect. These cause
> > > > unpredictable delay.
> > > >
> > > > To get reasonable allocation speed from dma-buf system heap, use
> > > > HIGH_ORDER_GFP for order 4 to avoid reclaim.
> >
> > Thanks for sharing this!
> > The case where the allocation gets stuck behind reclaim under pressure
> > does sound undesirable, but I'd be a bit hesitant to tweak numbers
> > that have been used for a long while (going back to ion) without a bit
> > more data.
> >
> > It might be good to also better understand the tradeoff of potential
> > on-going impact to performance from using low order pages when the
> > buffer is used. Do you have any details like or tests that you could
> > share to help ensure this won't impact other users?
> >
> > TJ: Do you have any additional thoughts on this?
> >
> I don't have any data on how often we hit reclaim for mid order
> allocations. That would be interesting to know. However the 70th
> percentile of system-wide buffer sizes while running the camera on my
> phone is still only 1 page, so it looks like this change would affect
> a subset of use-cases.
>
> Wouldn't this change make it less likely to get an order 4 allocation
> (under memory pressure)? The commit message makes me think the goal of
> the change is to get more of them.
Hello John Stultz
I've been waiting for your next reply.
With my commit, we may gather less number of order 4 pages and fill the
requested size with more number of order 0 pages. I think, howerver, stable
allocation speed is quite important so that corresponding user space
context can move on within a specific time.
Not only compaction but reclaim also, I think, would be invoked more if the
__GFP_RECLAIM is added on order 4. I expect the reclaim could be decreased
if we move to order 0.
Thank you
Jaewon Kim
>
> Actually with the low order being 0, I don't think __GFP_COMP makes
> sense in LOW_ORDER_GFP. But I guess that flag isn't harmful there.
>
> > thanks
> > -john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-25 9:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcas1p2.samsung.com>
2023-01-17 8:25 ` [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4 Jaewon Kim
[not found] ` <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p6>
2023-01-17 8:31 ` Jaewon Kim
2023-01-18 6:54 ` John Stultz
2023-01-18 19:55 ` T.J. Mercier
[not found] ` <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p2>
2023-01-25 9:56 ` Jaewon Kim [this message]
2023-01-25 10:19 ` Jaewon Kim
2023-01-25 20:32 ` John Stultz
[not found] ` <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p3>
2023-01-26 4:42 ` 김재원
2023-01-26 5:04 ` (2) " John Stultz
[not found] ` <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p8>
2023-01-18 7:30 ` Jaewon Kim
2023-02-04 15:02 ` Jaewon Kim
2023-02-07 4:37 ` (2) " John Stultz
[not found] ` <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p1>
2023-02-07 7:33 ` Jaewon Kim
2023-02-07 16:56 ` John Stultz
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=20230125095646epcms1p2a97e403a9589ee1b74a3e7ac7d573f9b@epcms1p2 \
--to=jaewon31.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jaewon31.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=jstultz@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=sumit.semwal@linaro.org \
--cc=tjmercier@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).