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

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 13:45:33 +0100
Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 05:23:38PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 31 May 2021 13:04:12 +0100
Mel Gorman [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

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. 

I don't have time right now.

If others have time, you can use this git tree provided by Mel:

 https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux.git/
 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux.git
 branch: mm-pcphighorder-v1r7

Alternatively, a negative result would mean going back to the drawing
board :)

I'm confident that this will be a positive performance change. (I
remember we played with similar patches back in 2017).

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer