[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151105181726.GA63566@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 10:17:26 -0800
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Jason Evans <je@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
yalin wang <yalin.wang2010@...il.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/13] mm: support madvise(MADV_FREE)
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 05:05:47PM -0500, Daniel Micay wrote:
> > With enough pages at once, though, munmap would be fine, too.
>
> That implies lots of page faults and zeroing though. The zeroing alone
> is a major performance issue.
>
> There are separate issues with munmap since it ends up resulting in a
> lot more virtual memory fragmentation. It would help if the kernel used
> first-best-fit for mmap instead of the current naive algorithm (bonus:
> O(log n) worst-case, not O(n)). Since allocators like jemalloc and
> PartitionAlloc want 2M aligned spans, mixing them with other allocators
> can also accelerate the VM fragmentation caused by the dumb mmap
> algorithm (i.e. they make a 2M aligned mapping, some other mmap user
> does 4k, now there's a nearly 2M gap when the next 2M region is made and
> the kernel keeps going rather than reusing it). Anyway, that's a totally
> separate issue from this. Just felt like complaining :).
>
> > Maybe what's really needed is a MADV_FREE variant that takes an iovec.
> > On an all-cores multithreaded mm, the TLB shootdown broadcast takes
> > thousands of cycles on each core more or less regardless of how much
> > of the TLB gets zapped.
>
> That would work very well. The allocator ends up having a sequence of
> dirty spans that it needs to purge in one go. As long as purging is
> fairly spread out, the cost of a single TLB shootdown isn't that bad. It
> is extremely bad if it needs to do it over and over to purge a bunch of
> ranges, which can happen if the memory has ended up being very, very
> fragmentated despite the efforts to compact it (depends on what the
> application ends up doing).
I posted a patch doing exactly iovec madvise. Doesn't support MADV_FREE yet
though, but should be easy to do it.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=144615663522661&w=2
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists