All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] net: use kvmalloc with __GFP_REPEAT rather than open coded variant
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:21:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod73-ddnbMAWXF9QpXMcpjZMLreLXheUo-CgcB7s_5iBnQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170306103327.2766-3-mhocko@kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> fq_alloc_node, alloc_netdev_mqs and netif_alloc* open code kmalloc
> with vmalloc fallback. Use the kvmalloc variant instead. Keep the
> __GFP_REPEAT flag based on explanation from Eric:
> "
> At the time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that
> vmalloc() could deliver pages spread all over the memory and that was a
> small penalty (once memory is fragmented enough, not at boot time)
> "
>
> The way how the code is constructed means, however, that we prefer to go
> and hit the OOM killer before we fall back to the vmalloc for requests
> <=32kB (with 4kB pages) in the current code. This is rather disruptive for
> something that can be achived with the fallback. On the other hand
> __GFP_REPEAT doesn't have any useful semantic for these requests. So the
> effect of this patch is that requests smaller than 64kB will fallback to

I am a bit confused about this 64kB, shouldn't it be <=32kB (with 4kB
pages & PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER = 3)?

> vmalloc easier now.
>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] net: use kvmalloc with __GFP_REPEAT rather than open coded variant
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 16:21:43 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALvZod73-ddnbMAWXF9QpXMcpjZMLreLXheUo-CgcB7s_5iBnQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170306103327.2766-3-mhocko@kernel.org>

On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
>
> fq_alloc_node, alloc_netdev_mqs and netif_alloc* open code kmalloc
> with vmalloc fallback. Use the kvmalloc variant instead. Keep the
> __GFP_REPEAT flag based on explanation from Eric:
> "
> At the time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that
> vmalloc() could deliver pages spread all over the memory and that was a
> small penalty (once memory is fragmented enough, not at boot time)
> "
>
> The way how the code is constructed means, however, that we prefer to go
> and hit the OOM killer before we fall back to the vmalloc for requests
> <=32kB (with 4kB pages) in the current code. This is rather disruptive for
> something that can be achived with the fallback. On the other hand
> __GFP_REPEAT doesn't have any useful semantic for these requests. So the
> effect of this patch is that requests smaller than 64kB will fallback to

I am a bit confused about this 64kB, shouldn't it be <=32kB (with 4kB
pages & PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER = 3)?

> vmalloc easier now.
>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
> ---

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-30 23:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-06 10:30 [PATCH 0/6 v5] kvmalloc Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30 ` [PATCH 1/9] mm: introduce kv[mz]alloc helpers Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30   ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02  7:17   ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-06-02  7:17     ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-06-02  7:28     ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02  7:28       ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02  7:40       ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-06-02  7:40         ` Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)
2017-06-02  7:50         ` Michal Hocko
2017-06-02  7:50           ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30 ` [PATCH 2/9] mm: support __GFP_REPEAT in kvmalloc_node for >32kB Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30   ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-07  0:45   ` Shakeel Butt
2017-04-07  0:45     ` Shakeel Butt
2017-04-07  7:40     ` Michal Hocko
2017-04-07  7:40       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30 ` [PATCH 3/9] rhashtable: simplify a strange allocation pattern Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30 ` [PATCH 4/9] ila: " Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:30   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33 ` [PATCH 5/9] xattr: zero out memory copied to userspace in getxattr Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33   ` [PATCH 6/9] treewide: use kv[mz]alloc* rather than opencoded variants Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33   ` [PATCH 7/9] net: use kvmalloc with __GFP_REPEAT rather than open coded variant Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-30 23:21     ` Shakeel Butt [this message]
2017-03-30 23:21       ` Shakeel Butt
2017-03-31  8:46       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-31  8:46         ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33   ` [PATCH 8/9] md: use kvmalloc rather than opencoded variant Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33   ` [PATCH 9/9] bcache: use kvmalloc Michal Hocko
2017-03-06 10:33     ` Michal Hocko

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=CALvZod73-ddnbMAWXF9QpXMcpjZMLreLXheUo-CgcB7s_5iBnQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.