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 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74AC9C54E94 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 05:05:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229844AbjAZFE6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 00:04:58 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51090 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235786AbjAZFEx (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Jan 2023 00:04:53 -0500 Received: from mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com (mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b2b]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F17D25E37 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:04:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-yb1-xb2b.google.com with SMTP id b1so725955ybn.11 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:04:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=DiMArbdV/T0/c00vu6b8fiK7TVndbh70egFu73S7mgY=; b=j/LKANNaDiV/aVUigkiPOcRVnzC0NEKIE5OVSqZFXO5PQmA8IB4O6ybyFs7K9nHv5e laSl/lOwAbh+AdgJ1eP2IphhzkEB7ecxZcjDktRE3b7n6EfL5C19sLZ43AqeRBfb0KtA R6bpp2jKN9ETwo60eIyTxSUyaKK5Do9xQQjYLkEb5WyGf3LUpoxQ5pBOAkUzfJdMuySn /86Tg01i6EE+kVVaHoYAzQ0fo3EJsMxn11gTJmXMNVyZ5V6Yfmz133yEbMijwhoIplf+ 2aV4ifCQegjZ71ujLZnnBTPJJUNRx3qFktIIvJIE/PK6s26dYj4szNUqSVjykNzyKJOV 26mA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DiMArbdV/T0/c00vu6b8fiK7TVndbh70egFu73S7mgY=; b=mNyZyOzPjiOsrHXxXJxj+P0L0QCISTaVtRVtfDKGjR7yrfAZX2hKufUF3Yj0WBK0Gv Y5n7ZnzNR0emxVxZ/NyOF3A8DIMeTW4CrDKvParcfbJ6XLzdm1aw1+b00Gdp+XIQYAdI vVzyjw/SiHTaJQ8bTKZJdzouxw9yU4Oru5EsP2y3RPVkt226soBwsEAdX27Ad6AIZNMR AscS6ZCBJQEy6G/2DKmboFLfh56P3VJsJFpqy2R92jbaP+zepswX6DsTBjnmnz0CyFhw W0GSkatddKx4FJb+tj9EygkkIOqRMDtV++1Pc0+drGIZWjDmz8dhN1ncVSmxjRcALmPb KrEg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2koe4Bp8228OXKMrvbHGeSJAelMFUNjuGgSGgLd9VhRdxf6TECH1 HEhua6l5z6alwbt8suAev97c55DpveB717Cb6p38 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXvqx4UwR/r3vyZL8yNah3Pa9DYRDPjFsXDYhXUxO9RFX6K9KBd57NKlJxTw0JZEjJN84sol+jsPKtLhpA9OJvo= X-Received: by 2002:a5b:84d:0:b0:7ba:e354:5aaf with SMTP id v13-20020a5b084d000000b007bae3545aafmr4010311ybq.37.1674709491637; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:04:51 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230117082508.8953-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20230117083103epcms1p63382eee1cce1077248a4b634681b0aca@epcms1p6> <20230125095646epcms1p2a97e403a9589ee1b74a3e7ac7d573f9b@epcms1p2> <20230125101957epcms1p2d06d65a9147e16f3281b13c085e5a74c@epcms1p2> <20230126044218epcms1p35474178c2f2b18524f35c7d9799e3aed@epcms1p3> In-Reply-To: <20230126044218epcms1p35474178c2f2b18524f35c7d9799e3aed@epcms1p3> From: John Stultz Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:04:39 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: (2) [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4 To: jaewon31.kim@samsung.com Cc: "T.J. Mercier" , "sumit.semwal@linaro.org" , "daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "hannes@cmpxchg.org" , "mhocko@kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "jaewon31.kim@gmail.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:42 PM =EA=B9=80=EC=9E=AC=EC=9B=90 wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:20 AM Jaewon Kim w= rote: > > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:54 PM John Stultz = wrote: > > But because your change is different from what the old ion code did, I > > want to be a little cautious. So it would be nice to see some > > evaluation of not just the benefits the patch provides you but also of > > what negative impact it might have. And so far you haven't provided > > any details there. > > > > A quick example might be for the use case where mid-order allocations > > are causing you trouble, you could see how the performance changes if > > you force all mid-order allocations to be single page allocations (so > > orders[] =3D {8, 0, 0};) and compare it with the current code when > > there's no memory pressure (right after reboot when pages haven't been > > fragmented) so the mid-order allocations will succeed. That will let > > us know the potential downside if we have brief / transient pressure > > at allocation time that forces small pages. > > > > Does that make sense? > > Let me try this. It make take some days. But I guess it depends on memory > status as you said. If there were quite many order 4 pages, then 8 4 0 > should be faster than 8 0 0. > > I don't know this is a right approach. In my opinion, except the specific > cases like right after reboot, there are not many order 4 pages. And > in determinisitic allocation time perspective, I think avoiding too long > allocations is more important than making faster with already existing > free order 4 pages. I suspect you are right, and do think your change will be helpful. But I just want to make sure we're doing some due diligence, instead of going on just gut instinct. Thanks so much for helping with this! -john