Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] vmalloc: Optimize vfree

[Muhammad Usama Anjum]

On 30/03/2026 3:35 pm, Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) wrote:
> On 3/27/26 13:57, 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; update stats separately first as coalescing is
>> hard to do correctly without complexity. Use free_pages_bulk() which uses
>> 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/
>> Acked-by: Zi Yan <ziy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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>
> 
> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka (SUSE) <vbabka@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thank you. But as the implementation of free_pages_bulk() has
changed to using num_pages_contiguous(), I cannot take this tag.
Please review the next version again.

> 
> 

-- 
---
Thanks,
Usama