[lkml]   [2007]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [00/17] [RFC] Virtual Compound Page Support
    Hi Christoph,

    On 19 Sep 2007, at 04:36, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > Currently there is a strong tendency to avoid larger page
    > allocations in
    > the kernel because of past fragmentation issues and the current
    > defragmentation methods are still evolving. It is not clear to what
    > extend
    > they can provide reliable allocations for higher order pages (plus the
    > definition of "reliable" seems to be in the eye of the beholder).
    > Currently we use vmalloc allocations in many locations to provide a
    > safe
    > way to allocate larger arrays. That is due to the danger of higher
    > order
    > allocations failing. Virtual Compound pages allow the use of regular
    > page allocator allocations that will fall back only if there is an
    > actual
    > problem with acquiring a higher order page.
    > This patch set provides a way for a higher page allocation to fall
    > back.
    > Instead of a physically contiguous page a virtually contiguous page
    > is provided. The functionality of the vmalloc layer is used to provide
    > the necessary page tables and control structures to establish a
    > virtually
    > contiguous area.

    I like this a lot. It will get rid of all the silly games we have to
    play when needing both large allocations and efficient allocations
    where possible. In NTFS I can then just allocated higher order pages
    instead of having to mess about with the allocation size and
    allocating a single page if the requested size is <= PAGE_SIZE or
    using vmalloc() if the size is bigger. And it will make it faster
    because a lot of the time a higher order page allocation will succeed
    with your patchset without resorting to vmalloc() so that will be a
    lot faster.

    So where I currently have fs/ntfs/malloc.h the below mess I could get
    rid of it completely and just use the normal page allocator/
    deallocator instead...

    static inline void *__ntfs_malloc(unsigned long size, gfp_t gfp_mask)
    if (likely(size <= PAGE_SIZE)) {
    /* kmalloc() has per-CPU caches so is faster for
    now. */
    return kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE, gfp_mask & ~__GFP_HIGHMEM);
    /* return (void *)__get_free_page(gfp_mask); */
    if (likely(size >> PAGE_SHIFT < num_physpages))
    return __vmalloc(size, gfp_mask, PAGE_KERNEL);
    return NULL;

    And other places in the kernel can make use of the same. I think XFS
    does very similar things to NTFS in terms of larger allocations at
    least and there are probably more places I don't know about off the
    top of my head...

    I am looking forward to your patchset going into mainline. (-:

    Best regards,


    > Advantages:
    > - If higher order allocations are failing then virtual compound pages
    > consisting of a series of order-0 pages can stand in for those
    > allocations.
    > - "Reliability" as long as the vmalloc layer can provide virtual
    > mappings.
    > - Ability to reduce the use of vmalloc layer significantly by using
    > physically contiguous memory instead of virtual contiguous memory.
    > Most uses of vmalloc() can be converted to page allocator calls.
    > - The use of physically contiguous memory instead of vmalloc may
    > allow the
    > use larger TLB entries thus reducing TLB pressure. Also reduces
    > the need
    > for page table walks.
    > Disadvantages:
    > - In order to use fall back the logic accessing the memory must be
    > aware that the memory could be backed by a virtual mapping and take
    > precautions. virt_to_page() and page_address() may not work and
    > vmalloc_to_page() and vmalloc_address() (introduced through this
    > patch set) may have to be called.
    > - Virtual mappings are less efficient than physical mappings.
    > Performance will drop once virtual fall back occurs.
    > - Virtual mappings have more memory overhead. vm_area control
    > structures
    > page tables, page arrays etc need to be allocated and managed to
    > provide
    > virtual mappings.
    > The patchset provides this functionality in stages. Stage 1 introduces
    > the basic fall back mechanism necessary to replace vmalloc allocations
    > with
    > alloc_page(GFP_VFALLBACK, order, ....)
    > which signifies to the page allocator that a higher order is to be
    > found
    > but a virtual mapping may stand in if there is an issue with
    > fragmentation.
    > Stage 1 functionality does not allow allocation and freeing of virtual
    > mappings from interrupt contexts.
    > The stage 1 series ends with the conversion of a few key uses of
    > vmalloc
    > in the VM to alloc_pages() for the allocation of sparsemems memmap
    > table
    > and the wait table in each zone. Other uses of vmalloc could be
    > converted
    > in the same way.
    > Stage 2 functionality enhances the fallback even more allowing
    > allocation
    > and frees in interrupt context.
    > SLUB is then modified to use the virtual mappings for slab caches
    > that are marked with SLAB_VFALLBACK. If a slab cache is marked this
    > way
    > then we drop all the restraints regarding page order and allocate
    > good large memory areas that fit lots of objects so that we rarely
    > have to use the slow paths.
    > Two slab caches--the dentry cache and the buffer_heads--are then
    > flagged
    > that way. Others could be converted in the same way.
    > The patch set also provides a debugging aid through setting
    > If set then all GFP_VFALLBACK allocations fall back to the virtual
    > mappings. This is useful for verification tests. The test of this
    > patch set was done by enabling that options and compiling a kernel.
    > Stage 3 functionality could be the adding of support for the large
    > buffer size patchset. Not done yet and not sure if it would be useful
    > to do.
    > Much of this patchset may only be needed for special cases in which
    > the
    > existing defragmentation methods fail for some reason. It may be
    > better to
    > have the system operate without such a safety net and make sure
    > that the
    > page allocator can return large orders in a reliable way.
    > The initial idea for this patchset came from Nick Piggin's fsblock
    > and from his arguments about reliability and guarantees. Since his
    > fsblock uses the virtual mappings I think it is legitimate to
    > generalize the use of virtual mappings to support higher order
    > allocations in this way. The application of these ideas to the large
    > block size patchset etc are straightforward. If wanted I can base
    > the next rev of the largebuffer patchset on this one and implement
    > fallback.
    > Contrary to Nick, I still doubt that any of this provides a
    > "guarantee".
    > Have said that I have to deal with various failure scenarios in the VM
    > daily and I'd certainly like to see it work in a more reliable manner.
    > IMHO getting rid of the various workarounds to deal with the small 4k
    > pages and avoiding additional layers that group these pages in
    > subsystem
    > specific ways is something that can simplify the kernel and make the
    > kernel more reliable overall.
    > If people feel that a virtual fall back is needed then so be it. Maybe
    > we can shed our security blanket later when the approaches to deal
    > with fragmentation have matured.
    > The patch set is also available via git from the largeblock git
    > tree via
    > git pull
    > git://
    > largeblocksize.git
    > vcompound
    > --
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-
    > kernel" in
    > the body of a message to
    > More majordomo info at
    > Please read the FAQ at

    Best regards,

    Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
    Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
    Linux NTFS maintainer,

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-09-19 09:37    [W:0.033 / U:2.092 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site