Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 3/5] mm/rmqueue_bulk: alloc without touching individual page structure

From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
	Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
	Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v4 PATCH 3/5] mm/rmqueue_bulk: alloc without touching individual page structure
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 12:20:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181018112055.GN5819@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181017142327.GB9167@intel.com>

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 10:23:27PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > RT has had problems with cpu_relax in the past but more importantly, as
> > this delay for parallel compactions and allocations of contig ranges,
> > we could be stuck here for very long periods of time with interrupts
> 
> The longest possible time is one CPU accessing pcp->batch number cold
> cachelines. Reason:
> When zone_wait_cluster_alloc() is called, we already held zone lock so
> no more allocations are possible. Waiting in_progress to become zero
> means waiting any CPU that increased in_progress to finish processing
> their allocated pages. Since they will at most allocate pcp->batch pages
> and worse case are all these page structres are cache cold, so the
> longest wait time is one CPU accessing pcp->batch number cold cache lines.
> 
> I have no idea if this time is too long though.
> 

But compact_zone calls zone_wait_and_disable_cluster_alloc so how is the
disabled time there bound by pcp->batch?

> > disabled. It gets even worse if it's from an interrupt context such as
> > jumbo frame allocation or a high-order slab allocation that is atomic.
> 
> My understanding is atomic allocation won't trigger compaction, no?
> 

No, they can't. I didn't check properly but be wary of any possibility
whereby interrupts can get delayed in zone_wait_cluster_alloc. I didn't
go back and check if it can -- partially because I'm more focused on the
lazy buddy aspect at the moment.

> > It may be necessary to consider instead minimising the number
> > of struct page update when merging to PCP and then either increasing the
> > size of the PCP or allowing it to exceed pcp->high for short periods of
> > time to batch the struct page updates.
> 
> I don't quite follow this part. It doesn't seem possible we can exceed
> pcp->high in allocation path, or are you talking about free path?
> 

I'm talking about the free path.

> And thanks a lot for the review!

My pleasure, hope it helps.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs