[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAC=cRTN77LAn-9-6rGukc2aUZQzx7oP9eKt_hJeb=wbnhGqObQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 10:37:34 +0800
From: huang ying <huang.ying.caritas@...il.com>
To: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@...il.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hillf Danton <hdanton@...a.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...ymobile.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/vmalloc: rework the drain logic
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 6:00 AM Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)
<urezki@...il.com> wrote:
>
> A current "lazy drain" model suffers from at least two issues.
>
> First one is related to the unsorted list of vmap areas, thus
> in order to identify the [min:max] range of areas to be drained,
> it requires a full list scan. What is a time consuming if the
> list is too long.
>
> Second one and as a next step is about merging all fragments
> with a free space. What is also a time consuming because it
> has to iterate over entire list which holds outstanding lazy
> areas.
>
> See below the "preemptirqsoff" tracer that illustrates a high
> latency. It is ~24 676us. Our workloads like audio and video
> are effected by such long latency:
This seems like a real problem. But I found there's long latency
avoidance mechanism in the loop in __purge_vmap_area_lazy() as
follows,
if (atomic_long_read(&vmap_lazy_nr) < resched_threshold)
cond_resched_lock(&free_vmap_area_lock);
If it works properly, the latency problem can be solved. Can you
check whether this doesn't work for you?
Best Reagrds,
Huang, Ying
<snip>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists