[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1608251451070.10766@east.gentwo.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 14:55:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
Aruna Ramakrishna <aruna.ramakrishna@...cle.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: what is the purpose of SLAB and SLUB (was: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/slab:
Improve performance of gathering slabinfo) stats
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Flipping the lid aside, there will always be a need for fast management
> of 4K pages. The primary use case is networking that sometimes uses
> high-order pages to avoid allocator overhead and amortise DMA setup.
> Userspace-mapped pages will always be 4K although fault-around may benefit
> from bulk allocating the pages. That is relatively low hanging fruit that
> would take a few weeks given a free schedule.
Userspace mapped pages can be hugepages as well as giant pages and that
has been there for a long time. Intermediate sizes would be useful too in
order to avoid having to keep lists of 4k pages around and continually
scan them.
> Dirty tracking of pages on a 4K boundary will always be required to avoid IO
> multiplier effects that cannot be side-stepped by increasing the fundamental
> unit of allocation.
Huge pages cannot be dirtied? This is an issue of hardware support. On
x867 you only have one size. I am pretty such that even intel would
support other sizes if needed. The case has been repeatedly made that 64k
pages f.e. would be useful to have on x86.
> Batching of tree_lock during reclaim for large files and swapping is also
> relatively low hanging fruit that also is doable in a week or two.
Ok these are good incremental improvement but they do not address the main
issue going forward.
> A high-order per-cpu cache for SLUB to reduce zone->lock contention is
> also relatively low hanging fruit with the caveat it makes per_cpu_pages
> larger than a cache line.
Would be great to have.
> If you want to rework the VM to use a larger fundamental unit, track
> sub-units where required and deal with the internal fragmentation issues
> then by all means go ahead and deal with it.
Hmmm... The time problem is always there. Tried various approaches over
the last decade. Could be a massive project. We really would need a
larger group of developers to effectively do this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists