On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:26:55 +0800 Pengfei Li <lpf.vector@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: "Uladzislau Rezki (Sony)" <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> > > The busy tree can be quite big, even though the area is freed > or unmapped it still stays there until "purge" logic removes > it. > > 1) Optimize and reduce the size of "busy" tree by removing a > node from it right away as soon as user triggers free paths. > It is possible to do so, because the allocation is done using > another augmented tree. > > The vmalloc test driver shows the difference, for example the > "fix_size_alloc_test" is ~11% better comparing with default > configuration: > > sudo ./test_vmalloc.sh performance > > <default> > Summary: fix_size_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 993985 usec > Summary: full_fit_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 973554 usec > Summary: long_busy_list_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 12617652 usec > <default> > > <this patch> > Summary: fix_size_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 882263 usec > Summary: full_fit_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 973407 usec > Summary: long_busy_list_alloc_test loops: 1000000 avg: 12593929 usec > <this patch> > > 2) Since the busy tree now contains allocated areas only and does > not interfere with lazily free nodes, introduce the new function > show_purge_info() that dumps "unpurged" areas that is propagated > through "/proc/vmallocinfo". > > 3) Eliminate VM_LAZY_FREE flag. > > Signed-off-by: Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> This should have included your signed-off-by, since you were on the patch delivery path. (Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst, section 11). Please send along your signed-off-by?
