From: Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>
To: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>, Jann Horn <[email protected]>
Cc: io-uring <[email protected]>,
Xiaoguang Wang <[email protected]>,
joseph qi <[email protected]>,
Jiufei Xue <[email protected]>,
Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>,
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>,
Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>,
David Rientjes <[email protected]>,
Joonsoo Kim <[email protected]>,
Andrew Morton <[email protected]>,
Linux-MM <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC} io_uring: io_kiocb alloc cache
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 23:31:58 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Hi Jens,
On 5/13/20 1:20 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> So I assume if someone does "perf record", they will see significant
>> reduction in page allocator activity with Jens' patch. One possible way
>> around that is forcing the page allocation order to be much higher. IOW,
>> something like the following completely untested patch:
On 5/13/20 11:09 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Now tested, I gave it a shot. This seems to bring performance to
> basically what the io_uring patch does, so that's great! Again, just in
> the microbenchmark test case, so freshly booted and just running the
> case.
Great, thanks for testing!
On 5/13/20 11:09 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Will this patch introduce latencies or non-deterministic behavior for a
> fragmented system?
You have to talk to someone who is more up-to-date with how the page
allocator operates today. But yeah, I assume people still want to avoid
higher-order allocations as much as possible, because they make
allocation harder when memory is fragmented.
That said, perhaps it's not going to the page allocator as much as I
thought, but the problem is that the per-CPU cache size is just to small
for these allocations, forcing do_slab_free() to take the slow path
often. Would be interesting to know if CONFIG_SLAB does better here
because the per-CPU cache size is much larger IIRC.
- Pekka
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-13 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-13 16:30 [PATCH RFC} io_uring: io_kiocb alloc cache Jens Axboe
2020-05-13 17:42 ` Jann Horn
2020-05-13 18:34 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-13 19:20 ` Pekka Enberg
2020-05-13 20:09 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-13 20:31 ` Pekka Enberg [this message]
2020-05-13 20:44 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 8:25 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-14 14:22 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 14:33 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 14:53 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-14 15:15 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 15:37 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-14 15:53 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 16:18 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-14 16:21 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 16:25 ` Pavel Begunkov
2020-05-14 17:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-14 17:41 ` Jens Axboe
2020-05-16 9:20 ` Xiaoguang Wang
2020-05-16 16:15 ` Xiaoguang Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox