On 01/06/2017 04:39 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 7:20 AM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Eric,
>> I am currently checking kmalloc with vmalloc fallback users and convert
>> them to a new kvmalloc helper [1]. While I am adding a support for
>> __GFP_REPEAT to kvmalloc [2] I was wondering what is the reason to use
>> __GFP_REPEAT in fq_alloc_node in the first place. c3bd85495aef
>> ("pkt_sched: fq: more robust memory allocation") doesn't mention
>> anything. Could you clarify this please?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
> I guess this question applies to all __GFP_REPEAT usages in net/ ?
>
> At the time, tests on the hardware I had in my labs showed that
> vmalloc() could deliver pages spread
> all over the memory and that was a small penalty (once memory is
> fragmented enough, not at boot time)
I wonder what's that cause of the penalty (when accessing the vmapped
area I suppose?) Is it higher risk of collisions cache misses within the
area, compared to consecutive physical adresses?
> I guess this wont be anymore a concern if I can finish my pending work
> about vmalloc() trying to get adjacent pages
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/21/285
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>