Re: [PATCH v1] mm/vmalloc: add a node corresponding to cached_hole_size

[Michal Hocko]

On Fri 21-07-17 04:39:48, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 06:01:41PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > we just record the cached_hole_size now, which will be used when
> > the criteria meet both of 'free_vmap_cache == NULL' and 'size <
> > cached_hole_size'. However, under above scenario, the search will
> > start from the rb_root and then find the node which just in front
> > of the cached hole.
> > 
> > free_vmap_cache miss:
> >       vmap_area_root
> >           /      \
> >        _next     U
> >         /  (T1)
> >  cached_hole_node
> >        /
> >      ...   (T2)
> >       /
> >     first
> > 
> > vmap_area_list->first->......->cached_hole_node->cached_hole_node.list.next
> >                   |-------(T3)-------| | <<< cached_hole_size >>> |
> > 
> > vmap_area_list->......->cached_hole_node->cached_hole_node.list.next
> >                                | <<< cached_hole_size >>> |
> > 
> > The time cost to search the node now is T = T1 + T2 + T3.
> > The commit add a cached_hole_node here to record the one just in front of
> > the cached_hole_size, which can help to avoid walking the rb tree and
> > the list and make the T = 0;
> 
> Yes, but does this matter in practice?  Are there any workloads where
> this makes a difference?  If so, how much?

I have already asked this and didn't get any response. There were other
versions of a similar patch without a good clarification...

Zhaoyang Huang, please try to formulate the problem you are fixing and
why. While it is clear that you add _an_ optimization it is not really
clear why we need it and whether it might adversely affect existing
workloads. I would rather not touch this code unless there is a strong
justification for it.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs