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=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS 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 F1AA7C43460 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA506613E6 for ; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:13:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231194AbhELMOZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 08:14:25 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53570 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230357AbhELMOY (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 May 2021 08:14:24 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A824D61370; Wed, 12 May 2021 12:13:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1620821596; bh=CNvjw7v8rjpcXWdSZ4Lsgcr/y2sXPEjKb5c0PWs8Axg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=CcY1AA9pn9Td0t+4RiKgd+c1vOg0shyOteuVyJtZF9W3SPHgYgUQo+GwmJOOms5JR WhKBISYoTuj5qH3bCnIAPX0hODuTnfvwV+SqzPKs4+VzKm0rc7bA3JFhb3FJDAJMeF WJLtL+gyXta2TmCOI7+0bH412kPDcdRWC0UwucHwh32S0OsgLHn2lQJ0atty5Fs4oF 7Z2tNlU67UCwLIjwdefvYUrT+myXZ75BdUD/y3RdiMGz5sNxtehb+ehBHjVScJKlVl ysUjI4IjOith8sHlLNbFRv6paqOrPB7eQOSNASg5MgvsqNpQOOFxgy2QIYuXvvdMRB fZLX+DiavAqTw== Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 15:13:12 +0300 From: Leon Romanovsky To: Dennis Dalessandro Cc: "Marciniszyn, Mike" , Haakon Bugge , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , OFED mailing list Subject: Re: [PATCH rdma-next] RDMA/rdmavt: Decouple QP and SGE lists allocations Message-ID: References: <6e45f8ca-59d3-354c-bddc-ad7ff449b58c@cornelisnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e45f8ca-59d3-354c-bddc-ad7ff449b58c@cornelisnetworks.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:08:59AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > On 5/11/21 3:27 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Marciniszyn, Mike wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why not kzalloc_node() here? > > > > > > I agree here. > > > > > > Other allocations that have been promoted to the core have lost the node attribute in the allocation. > > > > Did you notice any performance degradation? > > > > So what's the motivation to change it from the way it was originally > designed? It seems to me if the original implementation went to the trouble > to allocate the memory on the local node, refactoring the code should > respect that. I have no problem to make rdma_zalloc_*() node aware, but would like to get real performance justification. My assumption is that rdmavt use kzalloc_node for the control plane based on some internal performance testing and we finally can see the difference between kzalloc and kzalloc_node, am I right? Is the claim of performance degradation backed by data? The main reason (maybe I'm wrong here) is to avoid _node() allocators because they increase chances of memory allocation failure due to not doing fallback in case node memory is depleted. Again, I'm suggesting to do plain kzalloc() for control part of QP. Thanks > > -Denny