Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] vmalloc: Optimize vfree

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 3/16/26 12:31, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
> 
> Whenever vmalloc allocates high order pages (e.g. for a huge mapping) it
> must immediately split_page() to order-0 so that it remains compatible
> with users that want to access the underlying struct page.
> Commit a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy
> allocator") recently made it much more likely for vmalloc to allocate
> high order pages which are subsequently split to order-0.
> 
> Unfortunately this had the side effect of causing performance
> regressions for tight vmalloc/vfree loops (e.g. test_vmalloc.ko
> benchmarks). See Closes: tag. This happens because the high order pages
> must be gotten from the buddy but then because they are split to
> order-0, when they are freed they are freed to the order-0 pcp.
> Previously allocation was for order-0 pages so they were recycled from
> the pcp.
> 
> It would be preferable if when vmalloc allocates an (e.g.) order-3 page
> that it also frees that order-3 page to the order-3 pcp, then the
> regression could be removed.
> 
> So let's do exactly that; use the new __free_contig_range() API to
> batch-free contiguous ranges of pfns. This not only removes the
> regression, but significantly improves performance of vfree beyond the
> baseline.
> 
> A selection of test_vmalloc benchmarks running on arm64 server class
> system. mm-new is the baseline. Commit a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request
> large order pages from buddy allocator") was added in v6.19-rc1 where we
> see regressions. Then with this change performance is much better. (>0
> is faster, <0 is slower, (R)/(I) = statistically significant
> Regression/Improvement):
> 
> +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
> | Benchmark       | Result Class                                             |   mm-new          |  this series       |
> +=================+==========================================================+===================+====================+
> | micromm/vmalloc | fix_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)          |        1331843.33 |         (I) 67.17% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)           |         415907.33 |             -5.14% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:4, h:0, l:500000 (usec)           |         755448.00 |         (I) 53.55% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:0, l:500000 (usec)          |        1591331.33 |         (I) 57.26% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:1, l:500000 (usec)          |        1594345.67 |         (I) 68.46% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:0, l:100000 (usec)          |        1071826.00 |         (I) 79.27% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:1, l:100000 (usec)          |        1018385.00 |         (I) 84.17% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:0, l:100000 (usec)         |        3970899.67 |         (I) 77.01% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:1, l:100000 (usec)         |        3821788.67 |         (I) 89.44% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:0, l:100000 (usec)         |        7795968.00 |         (I) 82.67% |
> |                 | fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:1, l:100000 (usec)         |        6530169.67 |        (I) 118.09% |
> |                 | full_fit_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)           |         626808.33 |             -0.98% |
> |                 | kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) |         532145.67 |             -1.68% |
> |                 | kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec) |         537032.67 |             -0.96% |
> |                 | long_busy_list_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)     |        8805069.00 |         (I) 74.58% |
> |                 | pcpu_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)               |         500824.67 |              4.35% |
> |                 | random_size_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)  |        1637554.67 |         (I) 76.99% |
> |                 | random_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)        |        4556288.67 |         (I) 72.23% |
> |                 | vm_map_ram_test: p:1, h:0, l:500000 (usec)               |         107371.00 |             -0.70% |
> +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------+
> 
> Fixes: a06157804399 ("mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator")
> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/66919a28-bc81-49c9-b68f-dd7c73395a0d@xxxxxxx/
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
> Co-developed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Rebase on mm-new
> - Rerun benchmarks
> ---
>  mm/vmalloc.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/vmalloc.c b/mm/vmalloc.c
> index c607307c657a6..8b935395fb068 100644
> --- a/mm/vmalloc.c
> +++ b/mm/vmalloc.c
> @@ -3459,18 +3459,34 @@ void vfree(const void *addr)
>  
>  	if (unlikely(vm->flags & VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS))
>  		vm_reset_perms(vm);
> -	for (i = 0; i < vm->nr_pages; i++) {
> -		struct page *page = vm->pages[i];
> +
> +	if (vm->nr_pages) {
> +		bool account = !(vm->flags & VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES);
> +		unsigned long start_pfn, pfn;
> +		struct page *page = vm->pages[0];
> +		int nr = 1;
>  
>  		BUG_ON(!page);
> -		/*
> -		 * High-order allocs for huge vmallocs are split, so
> -		 * can be freed as an array of order-0 allocations
> -		 */
> -		if (!(vm->flags & VM_MAP_PUT_PAGES))
> +		start_pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> +		if (account)
>  			mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_VMALLOC, -1);
> -		__free_page(page);
> -		cond_resched();
> +
> +		for (i = 1; i < vm->nr_pages; i++) {
> +			page = vm->pages[i];
> +			BUG_ON(!page);

We shouldn't be adding BUG_ON()'s. Rather demote also the pre-existing one
to VM_WARN_ON_ONCE() and skip gracefully.

> +			if (account)
> +				mod_lruvec_page_state(page, NR_VMALLOC, -1);

I think we should be able to batch this too to use "nr"?

> +			pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> +			if (start_pfn + nr == pfn) {
> +				nr++;
> +				continue;
> +			}
> +			__free_contig_range(start_pfn, nr);
> +			start_pfn = pfn;
> +			nr = 1;
> +			cond_resched();> +		}
> +		__free_contig_range(start_pfn, nr);
>  	}
>  	kvfree(vm->pages);
>  	kfree(vm);