All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	"AneeshKumarK.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:21:28 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130807092128.GE32449@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1375834084.2134.44.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:08:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:18 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > This patchset attempts to reduce the amount of contention we impose
> > > on the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex by replacing the global mutex with
> > > a table of mutexes, selected based on a hash. The original discussion can 
> > > be found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/12/428
> > 
> > Hello, Davidlohr.
> > 
> > I recently sent a patchset which remove the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex
> > entirely ('mm, hugetlb: remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex').
> > This patchset can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/29/54
> > 
> > If possible, could you review it and test it whether your problem is
> > disappered with it or not?
> 
> This patchset applies on top of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/96
> "[PATCH v2 00/10] mm, hugetlb: clean-up and possible bug fix", right?
> 
> AFAIK those changes are the ones Andrew picked up a few weeks ago and
> are now in linux-next, right? I was able to apply those just fine, but
> couldn't apply your 'remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex series' (IIRC
> pach 1/18 failed). I guess you'll send out a v2 anyway so I'll wait
> until then.
> 
> In any case I'm not seeing an actual performance issue with the
> hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, all I noticed was that under large DB
> workloads that make use of hugepages, such as Oracle, this lock becomes
> quite hot during the first few minutes of startup, which makes sense in
> the fault path it is contended. So I'll try out your patches, but, in
> this particular case, I just cannot compare with the lock vs without the
> lock situations.

Okay. I just want to know that lock contention is reduced by my patches
in the first few minutes of startup. I will send v2 soon.

Thanks.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
	"AneeshKumarK.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
	Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>,
	Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
	Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:21:28 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130807092128.GE32449@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1375834084.2134.44.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>

On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:08:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:18 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > This patchset attempts to reduce the amount of contention we impose
> > > on the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex by replacing the global mutex with
> > > a table of mutexes, selected based on a hash. The original discussion can 
> > > be found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/12/428
> > 
> > Hello, Davidlohr.
> > 
> > I recently sent a patchset which remove the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex
> > entirely ('mm, hugetlb: remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex').
> > This patchset can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/29/54
> > 
> > If possible, could you review it and test it whether your problem is
> > disappered with it or not?
> 
> This patchset applies on top of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/96
> "[PATCH v2 00/10] mm, hugetlb: clean-up and possible bug fix", right?
> 
> AFAIK those changes are the ones Andrew picked up a few weeks ago and
> are now in linux-next, right? I was able to apply those just fine, but
> couldn't apply your 'remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex series' (IIRC
> pach 1/18 failed). I guess you'll send out a v2 anyway so I'll wait
> until then.
> 
> In any case I'm not seeing an actual performance issue with the
> hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, all I noticed was that under large DB
> workloads that make use of hugepages, such as Oracle, this lock becomes
> quite hot during the first few minutes of startup, which makes sense in
> the fault path it is contended. So I'll try out your patches, but, in
> this particular case, I just cannot compare with the lock vs without the
> lock situations.

Okay. I just want to know that lock contention is reduced by my patches
in the first few minutes of startup. I will send v2 soon.

Thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-07  9:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-26 14:27 [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] hugepage: protect file regions with rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] hugepage: allow parallelization of the hugepage fault path Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-28  6:00   ` Hillf Danton
2013-07-28  6:00     ` Hillf Danton
2013-07-29 19:16     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-29 19:16       ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-29  6:18 ` [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking Joonsoo Kim
2013-07-29  6:18   ` Joonsoo Kim
2013-08-07  0:08   ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-08-07  0:08     ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-08-07  9:21     ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2013-08-07  9:21       ` Joonsoo Kim

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130807092128.GE32449@lge.com \
    --to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
    --cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
    --cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
    --cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
    --cc=emunson@mgebm.net \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=walken@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.