In order to reduce fragmentation, this patch classifies freed pages in two
groups according to their probability of being part of a high order merge.
Pages belonging to a compound whose next-highest buddy is free are more
likely to be part of a high order merge in the near future, so they will
be added at the tail of the freelist. The remaining pages are put at the
front of the freelist.
In this way, the pages that are more likely to cause a big merge are kept
free longer. Consequently there is a tendency to aggregate the
long-living allocations on a subset of the compounds, reducing the
fragmentation.
This heuristic was tested on three machines, x86, x86-64 and ppc64 with
3GB of RAM in each machine. The tests were kernbench, netperf, sysbench
and STREAM for performance and a high-order stress test for huge page
allocations.
KernBench X86
Elapsed mean 374.77 ( 0.00%) 375.10 (-0.09%)
User mean 649.53 ( 0.00%) 650.44 (-0.14%)
System mean 54.75 ( 0.00%) 54.18 ( 1.05%)
CPU mean 187.75 ( 0.00%) 187.25 ( 0.27%)
KernBench X86-64
Elapsed mean 94.45 ( 0.00%) 94.01 ( 0.47%)
User mean 323.27 ( 0.00%) 322.66 ( 0.19%)
System mean 36.71 ( 0.00%) 36.50 ( 0.57%)
CPU mean 380.75 ( 0.00%) 381.75 (-0.26%)
KernBench PPC64
Elapsed mean 173.45 ( 0.00%) 173.74 (-0.17%)
User mean 587.99 ( 0.00%) 587.95 ( 0.01%)
System mean 60.60 ( 0.00%) 60.57 ( 0.05%)
CPU mean 373.50 ( 0.00%) 372.75 ( 0.20%)
Nothing notable for kernbench.
NetPerf UDP X86
64 42.68 ( 0.00%) 42.77 ( 0.21%)
128 85.62 ( 0.00%) 85.32 (-0.35%)
256 170.01 ( 0.00%) 168.76 (-0.74%)
1024 655.68 ( 0.00%) 652.33 (-0.51%)
2048 1262.39 ( 0.00%) 1248.61 (-1.10%)
3312 1958.41 ( 0.00%) 1944.61 (-0.71%)
4096 2345.63 ( 0.00%) 2318.83 (-1.16%)
8192 4132.90 ( 0.00%) 4089.50 (-1.06%)
16384 6770.88 ( 0.00%) 6642.05 (-1.94%)*
NetPerf UDP X86-64
64 148.82 ( 0.00%) 154.92 ( 3.94%)
128 298.96 ( 0.00%) 312.95 ( 4.47%)
256 583.67 ( 0.00%) 626.39 ( 6.82%)
1024 2293.18 ( 0.00%) 2371.10 ( 3.29%)
2048 4274.16 ( 0.00%) 4396.83 ( 2.79%)
3312 6356.94 ( 0.00%) 6571.35 ( 3.26%)
4096 7422.68 ( 0.00%) 7635.42 ( 2.79%)*
8192 12114.81 ( 0.00%)* 12346.88 ( 1.88%)
16384 17022.28 ( 0.00%)* 17033.19 ( 0.06%)*
1.64% 2.73%
NetPerf UDP PPC64
64 49.98 ( 0.00%) 50.25 ( 0.54%)
128 98.66 ( 0.00%) 100.95 ( 2.27%)
256 197.33 ( 0.00%) 191.03 (-3.30%)
1024 761.98 ( 0.00%) 785.07 ( 2.94%)
2048 1493.50 ( 0.00%) 1510.85 ( 1.15%)
3312 2303.95 ( 0.00%) 2271.72 (-1.42%)
4096 2774.56 ( 0.00%) 2773.06 (-0.05%)
8192 4918.31 ( 0.00%) 4793.59 (-2.60%)
16384 7497.98 ( 0.00%) 7749.52 ( 3.25%)
The tests are run to have confidence limits within 1%. Results marked
with a * were not confident although in this case, it's only outside by
small amounts. Even with some results that were not confident, the
netperf UDP results were generally positive.
NetPerf TCP X86
64 652.25 ( 0.00%)* 648.12 (-0.64%)*
23.80% 22.82%
128 1229.98 ( 0.00%)* 1220.56 (-0.77%)*
21.03% 18.90%
256 2105.88 ( 0.00%) 1872.03 (-12.49%)*
1.00% 16.46%
1024 3476.46 ( 0.00%)* 3548.28 ( 2.02%)*
13.37% 11.39%
2048 4023.44 ( 0.00%)* 4231.45 ( 4.92%)*
9.76% 12.48%
3312 4348.88 ( 0.00%)* 4396.96 ( 1.09%)*
6.49% 8.75%
4096 4726.56 ( 0.00%)* 4877.71 ( 3.10%)*
9.85% 8.50%
8192 4732.28 ( 0.00%)* 5777.77 (18.10%)*
9.13% 13.04%
16384 5543.05 ( 0.00%)* 5906.24 ( 6.15%)*
7.73% 8.68%
NETPERF TCP X86-64
netperf-tcp-vanilla-netperf netperf-tcp
tcp-vanilla pgalloc-delay
64 1895.87 ( 0.00%)* 1775.07 (-6.81%)*
5.79% 4.78%
128 3571.03 ( 0.00%)* 3342.20 (-6.85%)*
3.68% 6.06%
256 5097.21 ( 0.00%)* 4859.43 (-4.89%)*
3.02% 2.10%
1024 8919.10 ( 0.00%)* 8892.49 (-0.30%)*
5.89% 6.55%
2048 10255.46 ( 0.00%)* 10449.39 ( 1.86%)*
7.08% 7.44%
3312 10839.90 ( 0.00%)* 10740.15 (-0.93%)*
6.87% 7.33%
4096 10814.84 ( 0.00%)* 10766.97 (-0.44%)*
6.86% 8.18%
8192 11606.89 ( 0.00%)* 11189.28 (-3.73%)*
7.49% 5.55%
16384 12554.88 ( 0.00%)* 12361.22 (-1.57%)*
7.36% 6.49%
NETPERF TCP PPC64
netperf-tcp-vanilla-netperf netperf-tcp
tcp-vanilla pgalloc-delay
64 594.17 ( 0.00%) 596.04 ( 0.31%)*
1.00% 2.29%
128 1064.87 ( 0.00%)* 1074.77 ( 0.92%)*
1.30% 1.40%
256 1852.46 ( 0.00%)* 1856.95 ( 0.24%)
1.25% 1.00%
1024 3839.46 ( 0.00%)* 3813.05 (-0.69%)
1.02% 1.00%
2048 4885.04 ( 0.00%)* 4881.97 (-0.06%)*
1.15% 1.04%
3312 5506.90 ( 0.00%) 5459.72 (-0.86%)
4096 6449.19 ( 0.00%) 6345.46 (-1.63%)
8192 7501.17 ( 0.00%) 7508.79 ( 0.10%)
16384 9618.65 ( 0.00%) 9490.10 (-1.35%)
There was a distinct lack of confidence in the X86* figures so I included
what the devation was where the results were not confident. Many of the
results, whether gains or losses were within the standard deviation so no
solid conclusion can be reached on performance impact. Looking at the
figures, only the X86-64 ones look suspicious with a few losses that were
outside the noise. However, the results were so unstable that without
knowing why they vary so much, a solid conclusion cannot be reached.
SYSBENCH X86
sysbench-vanilla pgalloc-delay
1 7722.85 ( 0.00%) 7756.79 ( 0.44%)
2 14901.11 ( 0.00%) 13683.44 (-8.90%)
3 15171.71 ( 0.00%) 14888.25 (-1.90%)
4 14966.98 ( 0.00%) 15029.67 ( 0.42%)
5 14370.47 ( 0.00%) 14865.00 ( 3.33%)
6 14870.33 ( 0.00%) 14845.57 (-0.17%)
7 14429.45 ( 0.00%) 14520.85 ( 0.63%)
8 14354.35 ( 0.00%) 14362.31 ( 0.06%)
SYSBENCH X86-64
1 17448.70 ( 0.00%) 17484.41 ( 0.20%)
2 34276.39 ( 0.00%) 34251.00 (-0.07%)
3 50805.25 ( 0.00%) 50854.80 ( 0.10%)
4 66667.10 ( 0.00%) 66174.69 (-0.74%)
5 66003.91 ( 0.00%) 65685.25 (-0.49%)
6 64981.90 ( 0.00%) 65125.60 ( 0.22%)
7 64933.16 ( 0.00%) 64379.23 (-0.86%)
8 63353.30 ( 0.00%) 63281.22 (-0.11%)
9 63511.84 ( 0.00%) 63570.37 ( 0.09%)
10 62708.27 ( 0.00%) 63166.25 ( 0.73%)
11 62092.81 ( 0.00%) 61787.75 (-0.49%)
12 61330.11 ( 0.00%) 61036.34 (-0.48%)
13 61438.37 ( 0.00%) 61994.47 ( 0.90%)
14 62304.48 ( 0.00%) 62064.90 (-0.39%)
15 63296.48 ( 0.00%) 62875.16 (-0.67%)
16 63951.76 ( 0.00%) 63769.09 (-0.29%)
SYSBENCH PPC64
-sysbench-pgalloc-delay-sysbench
sysbench-vanilla pgalloc-delay
1 7645.08 ( 0.00%) 7467.43 (-2.38%)
2 14856.67 ( 0.00%) 14558.73 (-2.05%)
3 21952.31 ( 0.00%) 21683.64 (-1.24%)
4 27946.09 ( 0.00%) 28623.29 ( 2.37%)
5 28045.11 ( 0.00%) 28143.69 ( 0.35%)
6 27477.10 ( 0.00%) 27337.45 (-0.51%)
7 26489.17 ( 0.00%) 26590.06 ( 0.38%)
8 26642.91 ( 0.00%) 25274.33 (-5.41%)
9 25137.27 ( 0.00%) 24810.06 (-1.32%)
10 24451.99 ( 0.00%) 24275.85 (-0.73%)
11 23262.20 ( 0.00%) 23674.88 ( 1.74%)
12 24234.81 ( 0.00%) 23640.89 (-2.51%)
13 24577.75 ( 0.00%) 24433.50 (-0.59%)
14 25640.19 ( 0.00%) 25116.52 (-2.08%)
15 26188.84 ( 0.00%) 26181.36 (-0.03%)
16 26782.37 ( 0.00%) 26255.99 (-2.00%)
Again, there is little to conclude here. While there are a few losses,
the results vary by +/- 8% in some cases. They are the results of most
concern as there are some large losses but it's also within the variance
typically seen between kernel releases.
The STREAM results varied so little and are so verbose that I didn't
include them here.
The final test stressed how many huge pages can be allocated. The
absolute number of huge pages allocated are the same with or without the
page. However, the "unusability free space index" which is a measure of
external fragmentation was slightly lower (lower is better) throughout the
lifetime of the system. I also measured the latency of how long it took
to successfully allocate a huge page. The latency was slightly lower and
on X86 and PPC64, more huge pages were allocated almost immediately from
the free lists. The improvement is slight but there.
[mel@csn.ul.ie: Tested, reworked for less branches]
[czoccolo@gmail.com: fix oops by checking pfn_valid_within()]
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
6dda9d55bf