On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 8:42 PM 김재원 <jaewon31.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 2:20 AM Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:54 PM John Stultz <jstultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But because your change is different from what the old ion code did, I
> > want to be a little cautious. So it would be nice to see some
> > evaluation of not just the benefits the patch provides you but also of
> > what negative impact it might have. And so far you haven't provided
> > any details there.
> >
> > A quick example might be for the use case where mid-order allocations
> > are causing you trouble, you could see how the performance changes if
> > you force all mid-order allocations to be single page allocations (so
> > orders[] = {8, 0, 0};) and compare it with the current code when
> > there's no memory pressure (right after reboot when pages haven't been
> > fragmented) so the mid-order allocations will succeed. That will let
> > us know the potential downside if we have brief / transient pressure
> > at allocation time that forces small pages.
> >
> > Does that make sense?
>
> Let me try this. It make take some days. But I guess it depends on memory
> status as you said. If there were quite many order 4 pages, then 8 4 0
> should be faster than 8 0 0.
>
> I don't know this is a right approach. In my opinion, except the specific
> cases like right after reboot, there are not many order 4 pages. And
> in determinisitic allocation time perspective, I think avoiding too long
> allocations is more important than making faster with already existing
> free order 4 pages.
I suspect you are right, and do think your change will be helpful.
But I just want to make sure we're doing some due diligence, instead
of going on just gut instinct.
Thanks so much for helping with this!
-john
