From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B837C433C1 for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CFD6198E for ; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:06:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230376AbhCVMFk (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:40 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:30554 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230398AbhCVMFE (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:05:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1616414702; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=U/bXzYpa0lKIDumM59ovfcEAUhcz1AW0rt4Zc9RBDwI=; b=M0Up/iKJpZnbO7t0K1fd0fLiSB5tvOGtQ2oMOod88DocD1ooqXrD5pFawtrIqFYO8BqGzK 7mA8WxqcOu+t2c9Zbjp7R+l6vIWpGakuaO7ZONX+1OLLpN2P8Wy5tdpUM2hEGDIQGzB41x dLOc6toXvsotH28sHtfkEgj4UeNLnuY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-600-G68X7_svO-SvZ5akdVQh2w-1; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 08:04:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: G68X7_svO-SvZ5akdVQh2w-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 968B97BA0; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from carbon (unknown [10.36.110.5]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74A3219C99; Mon, 22 Mar 2021 12:04:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:04:46 +0100 From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Vlastimil Babka , Chuck Lever , Christoph Hellwig , Alexander Duyck , Matthew Wilcox , LKML , Linux-Net , Linux-MM , Linux-NFS , brouer@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5] Introduce a bulk order-0 page allocator Message-ID: <20210322130446.0a505db0@carbon> In-Reply-To: <20210322091845.16437-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> References: <20210322091845.16437-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 09:18:42 +0000 Mel Gorman wrote: > This series is based on top of Matthew Wilcox's series "Rationalise > __alloc_pages wrapper" and does not apply to 5.12-rc2. If you want to > test and are not using Andrew's tree as a baseline, I suggest using the > following git tree > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux.git mm-bulk-rebase-v5r9 page_bench04_bulk[1] micro-benchmark on branch: mm-bulk-rebase-v5r9 [1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/mm/bench/page_bench04_bulk.c BASELINE single_page alloc+put: Per elem: 199 cycles(tsc) 55.472 ns LIST variant: time_bulk_page_alloc_free_list: step=bulk size Per elem: 206 cycles(tsc) 57.478 ns (step:1) Per elem: 154 cycles(tsc) 42.861 ns (step:2) Per elem: 145 cycles(tsc) 40.536 ns (step:3) Per elem: 142 cycles(tsc) 39.477 ns (step:4) Per elem: 142 cycles(tsc) 39.610 ns (step:8) Per elem: 137 cycles(tsc) 38.155 ns (step:16) Per elem: 135 cycles(tsc) 37.739 ns (step:32) Per elem: 134 cycles(tsc) 37.282 ns (step:64) Per elem: 133 cycles(tsc) 36.993 ns (step:128) ARRAY variant: time_bulk_page_alloc_free_array: step=bulk size Per elem: 202 cycles(tsc) 56.383 ns (step:1) Per elem: 144 cycles(tsc) 40.047 ns (step:2) Per elem: 134 cycles(tsc) 37.339 ns (step:3) Per elem: 128 cycles(tsc) 35.578 ns (step:4) Per elem: 120 cycles(tsc) 33.592 ns (step:8) Per elem: 116 cycles(tsc) 32.362 ns (step:16) Per elem: 113 cycles(tsc) 31.476 ns (step:32) Per elem: 110 cycles(tsc) 30.633 ns (step:64) Per elem: 110 cycles(tsc) 30.596 ns (step:128) Compared to the previous results (see below) list-variant got faster, but array-variant is still faster. The array variant lost a little performance. I think this can be related to the stats counters got added/moved inside the loop, in this patchset. Previous results from: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20210319181031.44dd3113@carbon/ On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:10:31 +0100 Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > BASELINE > single_page alloc+put: 207 cycles(tsc) 57.773 ns > > LIST variant: time_bulk_page_alloc_free_list: step=bulk size > > Per elem: 294 cycles(tsc) 81.866 ns (step:1) > Per elem: 214 cycles(tsc) 59.477 ns (step:2) > Per elem: 199 cycles(tsc) 55.504 ns (step:3) > Per elem: 192 cycles(tsc) 53.489 ns (step:4) > Per elem: 188 cycles(tsc) 52.456 ns (step:8) > Per elem: 184 cycles(tsc) 51.346 ns (step:16) > Per elem: 183 cycles(tsc) 50.883 ns (step:32) > Per elem: 184 cycles(tsc) 51.236 ns (step:64) > Per elem: 189 cycles(tsc) 52.620 ns (step:128) > > ARRAY variant: time_bulk_page_alloc_free_array: step=bulk size > > Per elem: 195 cycles(tsc) 54.174 ns (step:1) > Per elem: 123 cycles(tsc) 34.224 ns (step:2) > Per elem: 113 cycles(tsc) 31.430 ns (step:3) > Per elem: 108 cycles(tsc) 30.003 ns (step:4) > Per elem: 102 cycles(tsc) 28.417 ns (step:8) > Per elem: 98 cycles(tsc) 27.475 ns (step:16) > Per elem: 96 cycles(tsc) 26.901 ns (step:32) > Per elem: 95 cycles(tsc) 26.487 ns (step:64) > Per elem: 94 cycles(tsc) 26.170 ns (step:128) > The users of the API have been dropped in this version as the callers > need to check whether they prefer an array or list interface (whether > preference is based on convenience or performance). I'll start coding up the page_pool API user and benchmark that. > Changelog since v4 > o Drop users of the API > o Remove free_pages_bulk interface, no users In [1] benchmark I just open-coded free_pages_bulk(): https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/commit/49d224b19850b767c > o Add array interface > o Allocate single page if watermark checks on local zones fail -- Best regards, Jesper Dangaard Brouer MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer