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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 3CD71C433DB for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6959464ED9 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:18:41 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6959464ED9 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 9E7668D0163; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 08:18:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 997868D0157; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 08:18:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 839118D0163; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 08:18:40 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0020.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.20]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 686358D0157 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 08:18:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210986D66 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:18:40 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77878617600.02.295C73D Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3C1D6 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 2021 13:18:37 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: fd4zKZ9nX0iG0A5xPTcCYbANGxYmqyqz+xUFcVTg1rIsRgqPtZQDU/b0XMlbgGsHa935FuiZ1G p2C3FFefedMg== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9911"; a="183811042" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,220,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="183811042" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Mar 2021 05:18:37 -0800 IronPort-SDR: KWKhfzFplIkeWCq5mt9MYFJG1F/ik3oxaa3kKSyaoF7xiB6EznPY49freWCmxSDJdL4i0bkYVy S9IAOYQuyhEg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.81,220,1610438400"; d="scan'208";a="445244776" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.165]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2021 05:18:33 -0800 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2021 21:18:32 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Michal Hocko Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Morton , Andrea Arcangeli , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman , Mike Kravetz , Randy Dunlap , Vlastimil Babka , "Hansen, Dave" , "Widawsky, Ben" , Andi leen , "Williams, Dan J" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 RFC 14/14] mm: speedup page alloc for MPOL_PREFERRED_MANY by adding a NO_SLOWPATH gfp bit Message-ID: <20210303131832.GB78458@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <1614766858-90344-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <1614766858-90344-15-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> <20210303120717.GA16736@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210303121833.GB16736@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BB3C1D6 X-Stat-Signature: pci9gwomqj961cz445edos1gxsfa8x11 Received-SPF: none (intel.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf12; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mga11.intel.com; client-ip=192.55.52.93 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1614777517-107097 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 03-03-21 20:18:33, Feng Tang wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 08:07:17PM +0800, Tang, Feng wrote: > > > Hi Michal, > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 12:39:57PM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Wed 03-03-21 18:20:58, Feng Tang wrote: > > > > > When doing broader test, we noticed allocation slowness in one test > > > > > case that malloc memory with size which is slightly bigger than free > > > > > memory of targeted nodes, but much less then the total free memory > > > > > of system. > > > > > > > > > > The reason is the code enters the slowpath of __alloc_pages_nodemask(), > > > > > which takes quite some time. As alloc_pages_policy() will give it a 2nd > > > > > try with NULL nodemask, so there is no need to enter the slowpath for > > > > > the first try. Add a new gfp bit to skip the slowpath, so that user cases > > > > > like this can leverage. > > > > > > > > > > With it, the malloc in such case is much accelerated as it never enters > > > > > the slowpath. > > > > > > > > > > Adding a new gfp_mask bit is generally not liked, and another idea is to > > > > > add another nodemask to struct 'alloc_context', so it has 2: 'preferred-nmask' > > > > > and 'fallback-nmask', and they will be tried in turn if not NULL, with > > > > > it we can call __alloc_pages_nodemask() only once. > > > > > > > > Yes, it is very much disliked. Is there any reason why you cannot use > > > > GFP_NOWAIT for that purpose? > > > > > > I did try that at the first place, but it didn't obviously change the slowness. > > > I assumed the direct claim was still involved as GFP_NOWAIT only impact kswapd > > > reclaim. > > I assume you haven't really created gfp mask correctly. What was the > exact gfp mask you have used? The testcase is a malloc with multi-preferred-node policy, IIRC, the gfp mask is HIGHUSER_MOVABLE originally, and code here ORs (__GFP_RETRY_MAYFAIL | __GFP_NOWARN). As GFP_WAIT == __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM, in this test case, the bit is already set. > > > > One thing I tried which can fix the slowness is: > > > > + gfp_mask &= ~(__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM | __GFP_KSWAPD_RECLAIM); > > > > which explicitly clears the 2 kinds of reclaim. And I thought it's too > > hacky and didn't mention it in the commit log. > > Clearing __GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM would be the right way to achieve > GFP_NOWAIT semantic. Why would you want to exclude kswapd as well? When I tried gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_DIRECT_RECLAIM, the slowness couldn't be fixed. Thanks, Feng > -- > Michal Hocko > SUSE Labs