On 5/12/21 8:13 AM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 12:08:59AM -0400, Dennis Dalessandro wrote:
On 5/11/21 3:27 PM, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 07:15:09PM +0000, Marciniszyn, Mike wrote:
Why not kzalloc_node() here?
I agree here.
Other allocations that have been promoted to the core have lost the node attribute in the allocation.
Did you notice any performance degradation?
So what's the motivation to change it from the way it was originally
designed? It seems to me if the original implementation went to the trouble
to allocate the memory on the local node, refactoring the code should
respect that.
I have no problem to make rdma_zalloc_*() node aware, but would like to get
real performance justification. My assumption is that rdmavt use kzalloc_node
for the control plane based on some internal performance testing and we finally
can see the difference between kzalloc and kzalloc_node, am I right?
Is the claim of performance degradation backed by data?
Yes, in the past. I don't have access anymore now that I'm not with
Intel. It probably would not have been publishable anyway.
The main reason (maybe I'm wrong here) is to avoid _node() allocators
because they increase chances of memory allocation failure due to not
doing fallback in case node memory is depleted.
Agreed. It's a trade-off that was deemed acceptable.
Again, I'm suggesting to do plain kzalloc() for control part of QP.
Now I don't recall data for that specifically, but to be on the safe
side I would not want to risk a performance regression.
-Denny
