linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] memory_hotplug: Free pages as pageblock

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 20:12:30 +0530
From:   Arun KS <arunks@...eaurora.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        pasha.tatashin@...cle.com, iamjoonsoo.kim@....com,
        osalvador@...e.de, malat@...ian.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        yasu.isimatu@...il.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, arunks.linux@...il.com,
        vinmenon@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] memory_hotplug: Free pages as pageblock_order

On 2018-09-12 18:47, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 12-09-18 22:57:43, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 12:38:53PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> > On Wed 12-09-18 14:56:45, Arun KS wrote:
>> > > When free pages are done with pageblock_order, time spend on
>> > > coalescing pages by buddy allocator can be reduced. With
>> > > section size of 256MB, hot add latency of a single section
>> > > shows improvement from 50-60 ms to less than 1 ms, hence
>> > > improving the hot add latency by 60%.
>> >
>> > Where does the improvement come from? You are still doing the same
>> > amount of work except that the number of callbacks is lower. Is this the
>> > real source of 60% improvement?
>> >
>> 
>> It looks like only the first page of the pageblock is initialized, is
>> some of the cost amortized in terms of doing one initialization for
>> the page with order (order) and then relying on split_page and helpers
>> to do the rest? Of course the number of callbacks reduce by a 
>> significant
>> number as well.
> 
> Ohh, I have missed that part. Now when re-reading I can see the reason
> for the perf improvement. It is most likely the higher order free which
> ends up being much cheaper. This part makes some sense.
> 
> How much is this feasible is another question. Do not forget we have
> those external providers of the online callback and those would need to
> be updated as well.
Sure Michal, I ll look into this.

> 
> Btw. the normal memmap init code path does the same per-page free as
> well. If we really want to speed the hotplug path then I guess the init
> one would see a bigger improvement and those two should be in sync.
Thanks for pointers, Will look further.

> 
>> > >
>> > > If this looks okey, I'll modify users of set_online_page_callback
>> > > and resend clean patch.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> > > +static int generic_online_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
>> > > +static online_pages_callback_t online_pages_callback = generic_online_pages;
>> > > +
>> > > +static int generic_online_pages(struct page *page, unsigned int order)
>> > > +{
>> > > +	unsigned long nr_pages = 1 << order;
>> > > +	struct page *p = page;
>> > > +	unsigned int loop;
>> > > +
>> > > +	for (loop = 0 ; loop < nr_pages ; loop++, p++) {
>> > > +		__ClearPageReserved(p);
>> > > +		set_page_count(p, 0);
> 
> btw. you want init_page_count here.
Do you mean replace set_page_count(p, 0) with init_page_count(page)?
Because init_page_count is setting the page _refcount to 1

static inline void init_page_count(struct page *page)
{
         set_page_count(page, 1);
}

I thought in case of higher order pages only the first struct page 
should have _refcount to 1 before calling __free_pages(). Please correct 
me if wrong.

Regards,
Arun