Re: [PATCH v3 00/11] Mitigate a vmap lock contention v3

[Uladzislau Rezki]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:15:59PM +0000, Pedro Falcato wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 8:35 AM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hello, Folk!
> >
> >[...]
> > pagetable_alloc - gets increased as soon as a higher pressure is applied by
> > increasing number of workers. Running same number of jobs on a next run
> > does not increase it and stays on same level as on previous.
> >
> > /**
> >  * pagetable_alloc - Allocate pagetables
> >  * @gfp:    GFP flags
> >  * @order:  desired pagetable order
> >  *
> >  * pagetable_alloc allocates memory for page tables as well as a page table
> >  * descriptor to describe that memory.
> >  *
> >  * Return: The ptdesc describing the allocated page tables.
> >  */
> > static inline struct ptdesc *pagetable_alloc(gfp_t gfp, unsigned int order)
> > {
> >         struct page *page = alloc_pages(gfp | __GFP_COMP, order);
> >
> >         return page_ptdesc(page);
> > }
> >
> > Could you please comment on it? Or do you have any thought? Is it expected?
> > Is a page-table ever shrink?
> 
> It's my understanding that the vunmap_range helpers don't actively
> free page tables, they just clear PTEs. munmap does free them in
> mmap.c:free_pgtables, maybe something could be worked up for vmalloc
> too.
>
Right. I see that for a user space, pgtables are removed. There was a
work on it.

>
> I would not be surprised if the memory increase you're seeing is more
> or less correlated to the maximum vmalloc footprint throughout the
> whole test.
> 
Yes, the vmalloc footprint follows the memory usage. Some uses cases
map lot of memory.

Thanks for the input!

--
Uladzislau Rezki