[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZdhmrEmA8wOuVcQT@pc636>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:34:36 +0100
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>
To: Pedro Falcato <pedro.falcato@...il.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@...y.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] Mitigate a vmap lock contention v3
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:15:59PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:35 AM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Folk!
> >
> >[...]
> > pagetable_alloc - gets increased as soon as a higher pressure is applied by
> > increasing number of workers. Running same number of jobs on a next run
> > does not increase it and stays on same level as on previous.
> >
> > /**
> > * pagetable_alloc - Allocate pagetables
> > * @gfp: GFP flags
> > * @order: desired pagetable order
> > *
> > * pagetable_alloc allocates memory for page tables as well as a page table
> > * descriptor to describe that memory.
> > *
> > * Return: The ptdesc describing the allocated page tables.
> > */
> > static inline struct ptdesc *pagetable_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order)
> > {
> > struct page *page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP, order);
> >
> > return page_ptdesc(page);
> > }
> >
> > Could you please comment on it? Or do you have any thought? Is it expected?
> > Is a page-table ever shrink?
>
> It's my understanding that the vunmap_range helpers don't actively
> free page tables, they just clear PTEs. munmap does free them in
> mmap.c:free_pgtables, maybe something could be worked up for vmalloc
> too.
>
Right. I see that for a user space, pgtables are removed. There was a
work on it.
>
> I would not be surprised if the memory increase you're seeing is more
> or less correlated to the maximum vmalloc footprint throughout the
> whole test.
>
Yes, the vmalloc footprint follows the memory usage. Some uses cases
map lot of memory.
Thanks for the input!
--
Uladzislau Rezki
Powered by blists - more mailing lists