From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932844AbcLGUL2 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:11:28 -0500
Received: from mail-pg0-f67.google.com ([74.125.83.67]:32906 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932503AbcLGUL1 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 7 Dec 2016 15:11:27 -0500
Message-ID: <1481141424.4930.71.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2016 12:10:24 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20161207194801.krhonj7yggbedpba@techsingularity.net>
References: <20161207101228.8128-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net>
         <1481137249.4930.59.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
         <20161207194801.krhonj7yggbedpba@techsingularity.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.10.4-0ubuntu2 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:48 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
>  
> 
> Interesting because it didn't match what I previous measured but then
> again, when I established that netperf on localhost was slab intensive,
> it was also an older kernel. Can you tell me if SLAB or SLUB was enabled
> in your test kernel?
> 
> Either that or the baseline I used has since been changed from what you
> are testing and we're not hitting the same paths.


lpaa6:~# uname -a
Linux lpaa6 4.9.0-smp-DEV #429 SMP @1481125332 x86_64 GNU/Linux

lpaa6:~# perf record -g ./netperf -t UDP_STREAM -l 3 -- -m 16384
MIGRATED UDP STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
localhost () port 0 AF_INET
Socket  Message  Elapsed      Messages                
Size    Size     Time         Okay Errors   Throughput
bytes   bytes    secs            #      #   10^6bits/sec

212992   16384   3.00       654644      0    28601.04
212992           3.00       654592           28598.77

[ perf record: Woken up 5 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.888 MB perf.data (~82481 samples) ]


perf report --stdio
...
     1.92%  netperf  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k]
cache_alloc_refill                 
            |
            --- cache_alloc_refill
               |          
               |--82.22%-- kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace
               |          __kmalloc_node_track_caller
               |          __alloc_skb
               |          alloc_skb_with_frags
               |          sock_alloc_send_pskb
               |          sock_alloc_send_skb
               |          __ip_append_data.isra.50
               |          ip_make_skb
               |          udp_sendmsg
               |          inet_sendmsg
               |          sock_sendmsg
               |          SYSC_sendto
               |          sys_sendto
               |          entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
               |          __sendto_nocancel
               |          |          
               |           --100.00%-- 0x0
               |          
           

Oh wait, sock_alloc_send_skb() requests for all the bytes in skb->head :

struct sk_buff *sock_alloc_send_skb(struct sock *sk, unsigned long size,
                                    int noblock, int *errcode)
{
        return sock_alloc_send_pskb(sk, size, 0, noblock, errcode, 0);
}


Maybe one day we will avoid doing order-4 (or even order-5 in extreme
cases !) allocations for loopback as we did for af_unix :P

I mean, maybe some applications are sending 64KB UDP messages over
loopback right now...