[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87poh7xoms.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 12:52:27 +0800
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@...cle.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 1/2] mm, swap: Use kvzalloc to allocate some swap data structure
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com> writes:
> On 03/23/2017 07:41 PM, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>
>>>> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
>>>>
>>>> Now vzalloc() is used in swap code to allocate various data
>>>> structures, such as swap cache, swap slots cache, cluster info, etc.
>>>> Because the size may be too large on some system, so that normal
>>>> kzalloc() may fail. But using kzalloc() has some advantages, for
>>>> example, less memory fragmentation, less TLB pressure, etc. So change
>>>> the data structure allocation in swap code to use kvzalloc() which
>>>> will try kzalloc() firstly, and fallback to vzalloc() if kzalloc()
>>>> failed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As questioned in -v1 of this patch, what is the benefit of directly
>>> compacting and reclaiming memory for high-order pages by first preferring
>>> kmalloc() if this does not require contiguous memory?
>>
>> The memory allocation here is only for swap on time, not for swap out/in
>> time. The performance of swap on is not considered critical. But if
>> the kmalloc() is used instead of the vmalloc(), the swap out/in
>> performance could be improved (marginally). More importantly, the
>> interference for the other activity on the system could be reduced, For
>> example, less memory fragmentation, less TLB usage of swap subsystem,
>> etc.
>
> Hi Ying,
>
> I'm a little surprised to see vmalloc calls replaced with
> kmalloc-then-vmalloc calls, because that actually makes fragmentation
> worse (contrary to the above claim). That's because you will consume
> contiguous memory (even though you don't need it to be contiguous),
> whereas before, you would have been able to get by with page-at-a-time
> for vmalloc.
>
> So, things like THP will find fewer contiguous chunks, as a result of patches such as this.
Hi, John,
I don't think so. The pages allocated by vmalloc() cannot be moved
during de-fragment. For example, if 512 dis-continuous physical pages
are allocated via vmalloc(), at worst, one page will be allocate from
one distinct 2MB continous physical pages. This makes 512 * 2MB = 1GB
memory cannot be used for THP allocation. Because these pages cannot be
defragmented until vfree().
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> --
> thanks,
> john h
>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Huang, Ying
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
>> the body to majordomo@...ck.org. For more info on Linux MM,
>> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
>> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@...ck.org"> email@...ck.org </a>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists