Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:19:51PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > See patch below signature. > > > > > > Besides I think you misunderstood me, you can adjust: > > > sysctl net.core.rmem_max > > > sysctl net.core.wmem_max > > > > > > And you should if you plan to use/set 851968 as

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 06:19:51PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > See patch below signature. > > > > > > Besides I think you misunderstood me, you can adjust: > > > sysctl net.core.rmem_max > > > sysctl net.core.wmem_max > > > > > > And you should if you plan to use/set 851968 as

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:11:01 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + > > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 15:11:01 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + > > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > > That's

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 09:18 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > Yes, I set it for higher speed networks as a starting point to remind me > to examine rmem_default or socket configurations if any significant packet > loss is observed. Note that your page allocators changes might show more impact with

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 09:18 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > Yes, I set it for higher speed networks as a starting point to remind me > to examine rmem_default or socket configurations if any significant packet > loss is observed. Note that your page allocators changes might show more impact with

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 03:48:13PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw negligible packet > > > > loss.

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw negligible packet loss. > > > I'm waiting to see what the full set of network tests

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 11:06:56 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw negligible packet loss. > > > I'm waiting to see what the full set of network tests look like before > > > doing

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw negligible packet loss. > > I'm waiting to see what the full set of network tests look like before > > doing any further adjustments. > > For netperf I will not recommend

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 11:43:08AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > That's expected. In the initial sniff-test, I saw negligible packet loss. > > I'm waiting to see what the full set of network tests look like before > > doing any further adjustments. > > For netperf I will not recommend

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:18:06 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + > > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 09:18:06 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + > > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > At small packet sizes on

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 09:22:31AM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + > Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page allocator > > > activity except

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page allocator > > activity except during the socket setup and other unrelated activity > >

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016 23:25:31 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page allocator > > activity except during the socket setup and other unrelated activity > > (khugepaged, irqbalance, some

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page allocator > activity except during the socket setup and other unrelated activity > (khugepaged, irqbalance, some btrfs stuff) which is curious as it's > less clear why the

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:19:58PM +, Mel Gorman wrote: > At small packet sizes on localhost, I see relatively low page allocator > activity except during the socket setup and other unrelated activity > (khugepaged, irqbalance, some btrfs stuff) which is curious as it's > less clear why the

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:10:24PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:48 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > Interesting because it didn't match what I previous measured but then > > again, when I established that netperf on localhost was slab intensive, > > it was also an

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 12:10:24PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:48 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > > > > Interesting because it didn't match what I previous measured but then > > again, when I established that netperf on localhost was slab intensive, > > it was also an

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:48 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Interesting because it didn't match what I previous measured but then > again, when I established that netperf on localhost was slab intensive, > it was also an older kernel. Can you tell me if SLAB or SLUB was enabled > in your test

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 19:48 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Interesting because it didn't match what I previous measured but then > again, when I established that netperf on localhost was slab intensive, > it was also an older kernel. Can you tell me if SLAB or SLUB was enabled > in your test

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:00:49AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 10:12 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > This is the result from netperf running UDP_STREAM on localhost. It was > > selected on the basis that it is slab-intensive and has been the subject > > of previous SLAB vs

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:00:49AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 10:12 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > This is the result from netperf running UDP_STREAM on localhost. It was > > selected on the basis that it is slab-intensive and has been the subject > > of previous SLAB vs

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 11:00 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > So far, I believe net/unix/af_unix.c uses PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER as > max_order, but UDP does not do that yet. For af_unix, it happened in

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 11:00 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > So far, I believe net/unix/af_unix.c uses PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER as > max_order, but UDP does not do that yet. For af_unix, it happened in

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 10:12 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > This is the result from netperf running UDP_STREAM on localhost. It was > selected on the basis that it is slab-intensive and has been the subject > of previous SLAB vs SLUB comparisons with the caveat that this is not > testing between two

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 10:12 +, Mel Gorman wrote: > This is the result from netperf running UDP_STREAM on localhost. It was > selected on the basis that it is slab-intensive and has been the subject > of previous SLAB vs SLUB comparisons with the caveat that this is not > testing between two

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:11:08AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > 3.0-era kernels had better fragmentation control, higher success rates at > > allocation etc. I vaguely recall that it had fewer sources of high-order > > allocations but I don't

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:11:08AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > 3.0-era kernels had better fragmentation control, higher success rates at > > allocation etc. I vaguely recall that it had fewer sources of high-order > > allocations but I don't

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > 3.0-era kernels had better fragmentation control, higher success rates at > allocation etc. I vaguely recall that it had fewer sources of high-order > allocations but I don't remember specifics and part of that could be the > lack of THP at the time. The

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > 3.0-era kernels had better fragmentation control, higher success rates at > allocation etc. I vaguely recall that it had fewer sources of high-order > allocations but I don't remember specifics and part of that could be the > lack of THP at the time. The

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:40:47AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Which is related to the fundamentals of fragmentation control in > > general. At some point there will have to be a revisit to get back to > > the type of reliability that existed in

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 10:40:47AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > Which is related to the fundamentals of fragmentation control in > > general. At some point there will have to be a revisit to get back to > > the type of reliability that existed in

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > Which is related to the fundamentals of fragmentation control in > general. At some point there will have to be a revisit to get back to > the type of reliability that existed in 3.0-era without the massive > overhead it incurred. As stated before, I agree

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > Which is related to the fundamentals of fragmentation control in > general. At some point there will have to be a revisit to get back to > the type of reliability that existed in 3.0-era without the massive > overhead it incurred. As stated before, I agree

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:52:27AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > SLUB has been the default small kernel object allocator for quite some time > > but it is not universally used due to performance concerns and a reliance > > on high-order pages. The

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 08:52:27AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > SLUB has been the default small kernel object allocator for quite some time > > but it is not universally used due to performance concerns and a reliance > > on high-order pages. The

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > SLUB has been the default small kernel object allocator for quite some time > but it is not universally used due to performance concerns and a reliance > on high-order pages. The high-order concerns has two major components -- SLUB does not rely on high

Re: [PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

On Wed, 7 Dec 2016, Mel Gorman wrote: > SLUB has been the default small kernel object allocator for quite some time > but it is not universally used due to performance concerns and a reliance > on high-order pages. The high-order concerns has two major components -- SLUB does not rely on high

[PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

After discussions with Joonsoo, I added a guarantee that high-order lists will be drained regardless of batch size. While I maintained it was unnecessary, it also did little harm other than increasing the size of the per-cpu structure. There were slight variations in performance but a mix of gains

[PATCH] mm: page_alloc: High-order per-cpu page allocator v7

After discussions with Joonsoo, I added a guarantee that high-order lists will be drained regardless of batch size. While I maintained it was unnecessary, it also did little harm other than increasing the size of the per-cpu structure. There were slight variations in performance but a mix of gains