Re: __GFP_REPEAT usage in fq_alloc_node

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 01/06/2017 05:48 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>
>> 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 believe tests were done with 48 fq qdisc, each having 2^16 slots.
> So I had 48 blocs,of 524288 bytes.
> 
> Trying a bit harder at setup time to get 128 consecutive pages got
> less TLB pressure.

Hmm that's rather surprising to me. TLB caches the page table lookups
and the PFN's of the physical pages it translates to shouldn't matter -
the page tables will look the same. With 128 consecutive pages could
manifest the reduced collision cache miss effect though.

> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
>