Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CGME20230117082521epcas1p22a709521a9e6d2346d06ac220786560d@epcms1p6>
 <20230117082508.8953-1-jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> <20230117083103epcms1p63382eee1cce1077248a4b634681b0aca@epcms1p6>
 <CANDhNCpKY5Af059ok8ZcgJ=wt7NaorZxqQXaTS848CwY0LNFiw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANDhNCpKY5Af059ok8ZcgJ=wt7NaorZxqQXaTS848CwY0LNFiw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "T.J. Mercier" <tjmercier@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:55:07 -0800
Message-ID: <CABdmKX3HFuaE0qwcADk-KLtVUdao-uhH-1zn4gv7ezq+bZE94w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma-buf: system_heap: avoid reclaim for order 4
To:     John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>
Cc:     jaewon31.kim@samsung.com,
        "sumit.semwal@linaro.org" <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        "daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch" <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "hannes@cmpxchg.org" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        "mhocko@kernel.org" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "jaewon31.kim@gmail.com" <jaewon31.kim@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:54 PM John Stultz <jstultz@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 12:31 AM Jaewon Kim <jaewon31.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > > Using order 4 pages would be helpful for many IOMMUs, but it could spend
> > > quite much time in page allocation perspective.
> > >
> > > The order 4 allocation with __GFP_RECLAIM may spend much time in
> > > reclaim and compation logic. __GFP_NORETRY also may affect. These cause
> > > unpredictable delay.
> > >
> > > To get reasonable allocation speed from dma-buf system heap, use
> > > HIGH_ORDER_GFP for order 4 to avoid reclaim.
>
> Thanks for sharing this!
> The case where the allocation gets stuck behind reclaim under pressure
> does sound undesirable, but I'd be a bit hesitant to tweak numbers
> that have been used for a long while (going back to ion) without a bit
> more data.
>
> It might be good to also better understand the tradeoff of potential
> on-going impact to performance from using low order pages when the
> buffer is used.  Do you have any details like or tests that you could
> share to help ensure this won't impact other users?
>
> TJ: Do you have any additional thoughts on this?
>
I don't have any data on how often we hit reclaim for mid order
allocations. That would be interesting to know. However the 70th
percentile of system-wide buffer sizes while running the camera on my
phone is still only 1 page, so it looks like this change would affect
a subset of use-cases.

Wouldn't this change make it less likely to get an order 4 allocation
(under memory pressure)? The commit message makes me think the goal of
the change is to get more of them.

Actually with the low order being 0, I don't think __GFP_COMP makes
sense in LOW_ORDER_GFP. But I guess that flag isn't harmful there.

> thanks
> -john