Re: [linus:master] [mm/vmalloc] 9c47753167: stress-ng.bigheap.realloc_calls_per_sec 21.3% regression

Hello, Oliver.

No, thank you!

As i mentioned i do not see how pointed patches can affect performance.

--
Uladzislsua Rezki

On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 5:38 AM Oliver Sang <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> hi, Uladzislau Rezki,
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 12:04:20PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > Hello, Oliver.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > kernel test robot noticed a 21.3% regression of stress-ng.bigheap.realloc_calls_per_sec on:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > commit: 9c47753167a6a585d0305663c6912f042e131c2d ("mm/vmalloc: defer freeing partly initialized vm_struct")
> > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > > >
> > > > > [still regression on linus/master      c9b47175e9131118e6f221cc8fb81397d62e7c91]
> > > > > [still regression on linux-next/master 008d3547aae5bc86fac3eda317489169c3fda112]
> > > > >
> > > > > testcase: stress-ng
> > > > > config: x86_64-rhel-9.4
> > > > > compiler: gcc-14
> > > > > test machine: 256 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6767P  CPU @ 2.4GHz (Granite Rapids) with 256G memory
> > > > > parameters:
> > > > >
> > > > >         nr_threads: 100%
> > > > >         testtime: 60s
> > > > >         test: bigheap
> > > > >         cpufreq_governor: performance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > > > > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > > > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
> > > > > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/[email protected]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > Could you please test below patch and confirm if it solves regression:
> > >
> > > we directly apply the patch upon 9c47753167, so our test branch looks like below
> > >
> > > * f7991e8a0136cb <---- below patch from you
> > > * 9c47753167a6a5 mm/vmalloc: defer freeing partly initialized vm_struct
> > > * 86e968d8ca6dc8 mm/vmalloc: support non-blocking GFP flags in alloc_vmap_area()
> > >
> > > but found it has little performance impacts
> > >
> > > =========================================================================================
> > > compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/testtime:
> > >   gcc-14/performance/x86_64-rhel-9.4/100%/debian-13-x86_64-20250902.cgz/lkp-gnr-2sp3/bigheap/stress-ng/60s
> > >
> > > 86e968d8ca6dc823 9c47753167a6a585d0305663c69 f7991e8a0136cb0fdf35f11e28a
> > > ---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
> > >          %stddev     %change         %stddev     %change         %stddev
> > >              \          |                \          |                \
> > >   48320196           -10.9%   43072080           -10.8%   43116499        stress-ng.bigheap.ops
> > >     785159            -9.8%     708390            -9.7%     708644        stress-ng.bigheap.ops_per_sec
> > >     879805           -21.3%     692805           -20.7%     697312        stress-ng.bigheap.realloc_calls_per_sec
> > >
> > Thank you for testing. I had same expectations. No difference.
> > Honestly i can not figure out how:
> >
> > * 9c47753167a6a5 mm/vmalloc: defer freeing partly initialized vm_struct
> > * 86e968d8ca6dc8 mm/vmalloc: support non-blocking GFP flags in alloc_vmap_area()
> >
> > can effect performance. I am not doing anything related to performance.
> > I would like to ask you if you could test one more thing. I see that
> >
> > [still regression on linus/master      c9b47175e9131118e6f221cc8fb81397d62e7c91]
> >
> > contains also below patch:
> >
> > <snip>
> > commit a0615780439938e8e61343f1f92a4c54a71dc6a5
> >     mm/vmalloc: request large order pages from buddy allocator
> > <snip>
> >
> > where we try to use larger order for vmalloc. Could you please revert
> > it and rerun same tests?
> >
> > Thank you in advance!
>
> we've seen comments from Mateusz Guzik in
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/e4b6sjeh22uqhxhxudsbanlnyo2potwowuy7mkrp6tvxnftjn4@mcjyes2s3eu6/
> that this could be related with cacheline bouncing.
>
> not sure if you still want us to do the test you mentioned?
>
> if so, sorry that I cannot make a clean covert of a061578043993 on
> c9b47175e9131. could you prepare a patch for us? thanks
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Uladzislau Rezki



-- 
Uladzislau Rezki