| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1c15b083-26f8-4473-80e6-bcc2f549ba41@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 13:12:10 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: Allow high-order pages to be stored on
the per-cpu lists
On 6/3/21 10:46 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> The per-cpu page allocator (PCP) only stores order-0 pages. This means
> that all THP and "cheap" high-order allocations including SLUB contends
> on the zone->lock. This patch extends the PCP allocator to store THP and
> "cheap" high-order pages. Note that struct per_cpu_pages increases in
> size to 256 bytes (4 cache lines) on x86-64.
>
> Note that this is not necessarily a universal performance win because of
> how it is implemented. High-order pages can cause pcp->high to be exceeded
> prematurely for lower-orders so for example, a large number of THP pages
> being freed could release order-0 pages from the PCP lists. Hence, much
> depends on the allocation/free pattern as observed by a single CPU to
> determine if caching helps or hurts a particular workload.
>
> That said, basic performance testing passed. The following is a netperf
> UDP_STREAM test which hits the relevant patches as some of the network
> allocations are high-order.
>
> netperf-udp
> 5.13.0-rc2 5.13.0-rc2
> mm-pcpburst-v3r4 mm-pcphighorder-v1r7
> Hmean send-64 261.46 ( 0.00%) 266.30 * 1.85%*
> Hmean send-128 516.35 ( 0.00%) 536.78 * 3.96%*
> Hmean send-256 1014.13 ( 0.00%) 1034.63 * 2.02%*
> Hmean send-1024 3907.65 ( 0.00%) 4046.11 * 3.54%*
> Hmean send-2048 7492.93 ( 0.00%) 7754.85 * 3.50%*
> Hmean send-3312 11410.04 ( 0.00%) 11772.32 * 3.18%*
> Hmean send-4096 13521.95 ( 0.00%) 13912.34 * 2.89%*
> Hmean send-8192 21660.50 ( 0.00%) 22730.72 * 4.94%*
> Hmean send-16384 31902.32 ( 0.00%) 32637.50 * 2.30%*
>
> From a functional point of view, a patch like this is necessary to
> make bulk allocation of high-order pages work with similar performance
> to order-0 bulk allocations. The bulk allocator is not updated in this
> series as it would have to be determined by bulk allocation users how
> they want to track the order of pages allocated with the bulk allocator.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Some comments below.
> ---
> include/linux/mmzone.h | 20 +++++-
> mm/internal.h | 2 +-
> mm/page_alloc.c | 159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> mm/swap.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> index 0ed61f32d898..1ceaa5f44db6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
> @@ -333,6 +333,24 @@ enum zone_watermarks {
> NR_WMARK
> };
>
> +/*
> + * One per migratetype for each PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER plus one additional
> + * for pageblock size for THP if configured.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> +#define NR_PCP_THP 1
> +#else
> +#define NR_PCP_THP 0
> +#endif
> +#define NR_PCP_LISTS (MIGRATE_PCPTYPES * (PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1 + NR_PCP_THP))
> +
> +/*
> + * Shift to encode migratetype in order in the least significant bits and
> + * migratetype in the higher bits.
Hard for me to understand that comment. I would describe what the code does as
e,g, "Shift to encode migratetype and order in the same integer, with order in
the least significant bit ..." etc.
> + */
> +#define NR_PCP_ORDER_SHIFT 8
Also ORDER_SHIFT is a bit misnomer, it's more precisely an ORDER_WIDTH, and we
are shifting migratetype with it, not order. I'm just comparing with how we name
nid/zid/etc bits in page flags.
> +#define NR_PCP_ORDER_MASK ((1<<NR_PCP_ORDER_SHIFT) - 1)
> +
> #define min_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_MIN] + z->watermark_boost)
> #define low_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_LOW] + z->watermark_boost)
> #define high_wmark_pages(z) (z->_watermark[WMARK_HIGH] + z->watermark_boost)
> @@ -349,7 +367,7 @@ struct per_cpu_pages {
> #endif
>
> /* Lists of pages, one per migrate type stored on the pcp-lists */
> - struct list_head lists[MIGRATE_PCPTYPES];
> + struct list_head lists[NR_PCP_LISTS];
> };
>
> struct per_cpu_zonestat {
> diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
> index 8fd61e344966..4f5c22dd8987 100644
> --- a/mm/internal.h
> +++ b/mm/internal.h
> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ extern void post_alloc_hook(struct page *page, unsigned int order,
> gfp_t gfp_flags);
> extern int user_min_free_kbytes;
>
> -extern void free_unref_page(struct page *page);
> +extern void free_unref_page(struct page *page, unsigned int order);
> extern void free_unref_page_list(struct list_head *list);
>
> extern void zone_pcp_update(struct zone *zone, int cpu_online);
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index 99ddac0ffece..ffd2d07060eb 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -687,10 +687,53 @@ static void bad_page(struct page *page, const char *reason)
> add_taint(TAINT_BAD_PAGE, LOCKDEP_NOW_UNRELIABLE);
> }
>
> +static inline unsigned int order_to_pindex(int migratetype, int order)
> +{
> + int base = order;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> + if (order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER) {
> + VM_BUG_ON(order != pageblock_order);
> + base = PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER + 1;
> + }
> +#else
> + VM_BUG_ON(order > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER);
> +#endif
> +
> + return (MIGRATE_PCPTYPES * base) + migratetype;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int pindex_to_order(unsigned int pindex)
> +{
> + int order = pindex / PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER;
This seems wrong, shouldn't we divide by MIGRATE_PCPTYPES?
It just happens to be the same number, so testing won't flag this.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists