[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <acc7ed46-b5d4-dac5-1c9f-a5a9c454c4a7@mellanox.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2017 18:43:09 +0300
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck
On 14/09/2017 11:19 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com> writes:
>>
>> Congestion in this case is very clear.
>> When monitored in perf top:
>> 85.58% [kernel] [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath
>
> Please look at the callers. Spinlock profiles without callers
> are usually useless because it's just blaming the messenger.
>
> Most likely the PCP lists are too small for your extreme allocation
> rate, so it goes back too often to the shared pool.
>
> You can play with the vm.percpu_pagelist_fraction setting.
Thanks Andi.
That was my initial guess, but I wasn't familiar with these tunes in VM
to verify that.
Indeed, bottleneck is released when increasing the PCP size, and BW
becomes significantly better.
>
> -Andi
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists