netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: Allow high-order pages to be stored on the per-cpu lists

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:45:33 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_alloc: Allow high-order pages to be stored
 on the per-cpu lists

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:04:12 +0100
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> 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.
> 
> This series[1] looks very interesting!  I confirm that some network
> allocations do use high-order allocations.  Thus, I think this will
> increase network performance in general, like you confirm below:
> 

Would you be able to do a small test on a real high-speed network? It's
something I can do easily myself in a few weeks but I do not have testbed
readily available at the moment. It's ok if you do not have the time,
it would just be nice if I could include independent results in the
changelog if the results are positive. Alternatively, a negative result
would mean going back to the drawing board :)

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs