From: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <robinmholt@gmail.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 00/10] split page table lock for PMD tables
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:12:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131004201213.GB32110@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1380287787-30252-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Kirill,
I've pasted in my results for 512 cores below. Things are looking
really good here. I don't have a test for HUGETLBFS, but if you want to
pass me the one you used, I can run that too. I suppose I could write
one, but why reinvent the wheel? :)
Sorry for the delay on these results. I hit some strange issues with
running thp_memscale on systems with either of the following
combinations of configuration options set:
[thp off]
HUGETLBFS=y
HUGETLB_PAGE=y
NUMA_BALANCING=y
NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
[thp on or off]
HUGETLBFS=n
HUGETLB_PAGE=n
NUMA_BALANCING=y
NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
I'm getting segfaults intermittently, as well as some weird RCU sched
errors. This happens in vanilla 3.12-rc2, so it doesn't have anything
to do with your patches, but I thought I'd let you know. There didn't
used to be any issues with this test, so I think there's a subtle kernel
bug here. That's, of course, an entirely separate issue though.
As far as these patches go, I think everything looks good (save for the
bit of discussion you were having with Andrew earlier, which I think
you've worked out). My testing shows that the page fault rates are
actually better on this threaded test than in the non-threaded case!
- Alex
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:16:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Alex Thorlton noticed that some massively threaded workloads work poorly,
> if THP enabled. This patchset fixes this by introducing split page table
> lock for PMD tables. hugetlbfs is not covered yet.
>
> This patchset is based on work by Naoya Horiguchi.
>
> Please review and consider applying.
>
> Changes:
> v4:
> - convert hugetlb to new locking;
> v3:
> - fix USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS;
> - fix warning in fs/proc/task_mmu.c;
> v2:
> - reuse CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS for PMD split lock;
> - s/huge_pmd_lock/pmd_lock/g;
> - assume pgtable_pmd_page_ctor() can fail;
> - fix format line in task_mem() for VmPTE;
>
> THP off, v3.12-rc2:
> -------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 1037072.835207 task-clock # 57.426 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.59% )
> 95,093 context-switches # 0.092 K/sec ( +- 3.93% )
> 140 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 5.28% )
> 10,000,550 page-faults # 0.010 M/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 2,455,210,400,261 cycles # 2.367 GHz ( +- 3.62% ) [83.33%]
> 2,429,281,882,056 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.94% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.67% ) [83.33%]
> 1,975,960,019,659 stalled-cycles-backend # 80.48% backend cycles idle ( +- 3.88% ) [66.68%]
> 46,503,296,013 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 52.24 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 3.21% ) [83.34%]
> 9,278,997,542 branches # 8.947 M/sec ( +- 4.00% ) [83.34%]
> 89,881,640 branch-misses # 0.97% of all branches ( +- 1.17% ) [83.33%]
>
> 18.059261877 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.65% )
>
> THP on, v3.12-rc2:
> ------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 3114745.395974 task-clock # 73.875 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.84% )
> 267,356 context-switches # 0.086 K/sec ( +- 1.84% )
> 99 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 1.40% )
> 58,313 page-faults # 0.019 K/sec ( +- 0.28% )
> 7,416,635,817,510 cycles # 2.381 GHz ( +- 1.83% ) [83.33%]
> 7,342,619,196,993 stalled-cycles-frontend # 99.00% frontend cycles idle ( +- 1.88% ) [83.33%]
> 6,267,671,641,967 stalled-cycles-backend # 84.51% backend cycles idle ( +- 2.03% ) [66.67%]
> 117,819,935,165 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 62.32 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 4.39% ) [83.34%]
> 28,899,314,777 branches # 9.278 M/sec ( +- 4.48% ) [83.34%]
> 71,787,032 branch-misses # 0.25% of all branches ( +- 1.03% ) [83.33%]
>
> 42.162306788 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.73% )
THP on, v3.12-rc2:
------------------
Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -C 0 -m 0 -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
568668865.944994 task-clock # 528.547 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
1,491,589 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.25% ) [100.00%]
1,085 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.80% ) [100.00%]
400,822 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.41% )
1,306,612,476,049,478 cycles # 2.298 GHz ( +- 0.23% ) [100.00%]
1,277,211,694,318,724 stalled-cycles-frontend # 97.75% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
1,163,736,844,232,064 stalled-cycles-backend # 89.07% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.20% ) [100.00%]
53,855,178,678,230 instructions # 0.04 insns per cycle
# 23.72 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 1.15% ) [100.00%]
21,041,661,816,782 branches # 37.002 M/sec ( +- 0.64% ) [100.00%]
606,665,092 branch-misses # 0.00% of all branches ( +- 0.63% )
1075.909782795 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.21% )
> HUGETLB, v3.12-rc2:
> -------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale_hugetlbfs -c 80 -b 512M' (5 runs):
>
> 2588052.787264 task-clock # 54.400 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.69% )
> 246,831 context-switches # 0.095 K/sec ( +- 4.15% )
> 138 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 5.30% )
> 21,027 page-faults # 0.008 K/sec ( +- 0.01% )
> 6,166,666,307,263 cycles # 2.383 GHz ( +- 3.68% ) [83.33%]
> 6,086,008,929,407 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.69% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.77% ) [83.33%]
> 5,087,874,435,481 stalled-cycles-backend # 82.51% backend cycles idle ( +- 4.41% ) [66.67%]
> 133,782,831,249 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 45.49 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 4.30% ) [83.34%]
> 34,026,870,541 branches # 13.148 M/sec ( +- 4.24% ) [83.34%]
> 68,670,942 branch-misses # 0.20% of all branches ( +- 3.26% ) [83.33%]
>
> 47.574936948 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.09% )
>
> THP off, patched:
> -----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 943301.957892 task-clock # 56.256 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.01% )
> 86,218 context-switches # 0.091 K/sec ( +- 3.17% )
> 121 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 6.64% )
> 10,000,551 page-faults # 0.011 M/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 2,230,462,457,654 cycles # 2.365 GHz ( +- 3.04% ) [83.32%]
> 2,204,616,385,805 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.84% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.09% ) [83.32%]
> 1,778,640,046,926 stalled-cycles-backend # 79.74% backend cycles idle ( +- 3.47% ) [66.69%]
> 45,995,472,617 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 47.93 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 2.51% ) [83.34%]
> 9,179,700,174 branches # 9.731 M/sec ( +- 3.04% ) [83.35%]
> 89,166,529 branch-misses # 0.97% of all branches ( +- 1.45% ) [83.33%]
>
> 16.768027318 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.47% )
>
> THP on, patched:
> ----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 458793.837905 task-clock # 54.632 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.79% )
> 41,831 context-switches # 0.091 K/sec ( +- 0.97% )
> 98 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 1.66% )
> 57,829 page-faults # 0.126 K/sec ( +- 0.62% )
> 1,077,543,336,716 cycles # 2.349 GHz ( +- 0.81% ) [83.33%]
> 1,067,403,802,964 stalled-cycles-frontend # 99.06% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.87% ) [83.33%]
> 864,764,616,143 stalled-cycles-backend # 80.25% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.73% ) [66.68%]
> 16,129,177,440 instructions # 0.01 insns per cycle
> # 66.18 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 7.94% ) [83.35%]
> 3,618,938,569 branches # 7.888 M/sec ( +- 8.46% ) [83.36%]
> 33,242,032 branch-misses # 0.92% of all branches ( +- 2.02% ) [83.32%]
>
> 8.397885779 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.18% )
THP on, patched:
----------------
Performance counter stats for './runt -t -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
15836198.490485 task-clock # 533.304 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.95% ) [100.00%]
127,507 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.65% ) [100.00%]
1,223 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 3.23% ) [100.00%]
302,080 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 6.88% )
18,925,875,973,975 cycles # 1.195 GHz ( +- 0.43% ) [100.00%]
18,325,469,464,007 stalled-cycles-frontend # 96.83% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.44% ) [100.00%]
17,522,272,147,141 stalled-cycles-backend # 92.58% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.49% ) [100.00%]
2,686,490,067,197 instructions # 0.14 insns per cycle
# 6.82 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 2.16% ) [100.00%]
944,712,646,402 branches # 59.655 M/sec ( +- 2.03% ) [100.00%]
145,956,565 branch-misses # 0.02% of all branches ( +- 0.88% )
29.694499652 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.95% )
(these results are from the test suite that I ripped thp_memscale out
of, but it's the same test)
> HUGETLB, patched
> -----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale_hugetlbfs -c 80 -b 512M' (5 runs):
>
> 395353.076837 task-clock # 20.329 CPUs utilized ( +- 8.16% )
> 55,730 context-switches # 0.141 K/sec ( +- 5.31% )
> 138 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 4.24% )
> 21,027 page-faults # 0.053 K/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 930,219,717,244 cycles # 2.353 GHz ( +- 8.21% ) [83.32%]
> 914,295,694,103 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.29% frontend cycles idle ( +- 8.35% ) [83.33%]
> 704,137,950,187 stalled-cycles-backend # 75.70% backend cycles idle ( +- 9.16% ) [66.69%]
> 30,541,538,385 instructions # 0.03 insns per cycle
> # 29.94 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 3.98% ) [83.35%]
> 8,415,376,631 branches # 21.286 M/sec ( +- 3.61% ) [83.36%]
> 32,645,478 branch-misses # 0.39% of all branches ( +- 3.41% ) [83.32%]
>
> 19.447481153 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.00% )
>
> Kirill A. Shutemov (10):
> mm: rename USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS to USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
> mm: convert mm->nr_ptes to atomic_t
> mm: introduce api for split page table lock for PMD level
> mm, thp: change pmd_trans_huge_lock() to return taken lock
> mm, thp: move ptl taking inside page_check_address_pmd()
> mm, thp: do not access mm->pmd_huge_pte directly
> mm, hugetlb: convert hugetlbfs to use split pmd lock
> mm: convent the rest to new page table lock api
> mm: implement split page table lock for PMD level
> x86, mm: enable split page table lock for PMD level
>
> arch/arm/mm/fault-armv.c | 6 +-
> arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 12 +--
> arch/sparc/mm/tlb.c | 12 +--
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/pgalloc.h | 11 ++-
> arch/x86/xen/mmu.c | 6 +-
> fs/proc/meminfo.c | 2 +-
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 16 ++--
> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 17 ++--
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 25 +++++
> include/linux/mm.h | 52 ++++++++++-
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 18 ++--
> include/linux/swapops.h | 7 +-
> kernel/fork.c | 6 +-
> mm/Kconfig | 3 +
> mm/huge_memory.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> mm/hugetlb.c | 108 +++++++++++++---------
> mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +-
> mm/memory.c | 21 +++--
> mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +-
> mm/migrate.c | 14 +--
> mm/mmap.c | 3 +-
> mm/mprotect.c | 4 +-
> mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +-
> mm/pgtable-generic.c | 16 ++--
> mm/rmap.c | 15 ++-
> 26 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.4.rc3
>
--
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: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Robin Holt <robinmholt@gmail.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 00/10] split page table lock for PMD tables
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:12:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131004201213.GB32110@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1380287787-30252-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Kirill,
I've pasted in my results for 512 cores below. Things are looking
really good here. I don't have a test for HUGETLBFS, but if you want to
pass me the one you used, I can run that too. I suppose I could write
one, but why reinvent the wheel? :)
Sorry for the delay on these results. I hit some strange issues with
running thp_memscale on systems with either of the following
combinations of configuration options set:
[thp off]
HUGETLBFS=y
HUGETLB_PAGE=y
NUMA_BALANCING=y
NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
[thp on or off]
HUGETLBFS=n
HUGETLB_PAGE=n
NUMA_BALANCING=y
NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
I'm getting segfaults intermittently, as well as some weird RCU sched
errors. This happens in vanilla 3.12-rc2, so it doesn't have anything
to do with your patches, but I thought I'd let you know. There didn't
used to be any issues with this test, so I think there's a subtle kernel
bug here. That's, of course, an entirely separate issue though.
As far as these patches go, I think everything looks good (save for the
bit of discussion you were having with Andrew earlier, which I think
you've worked out). My testing shows that the page fault rates are
actually better on this threaded test than in the non-threaded case!
- Alex
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:16:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Alex Thorlton noticed that some massively threaded workloads work poorly,
> if THP enabled. This patchset fixes this by introducing split page table
> lock for PMD tables. hugetlbfs is not covered yet.
>
> This patchset is based on work by Naoya Horiguchi.
>
> Please review and consider applying.
>
> Changes:
> v4:
> - convert hugetlb to new locking;
> v3:
> - fix USE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCKS;
> - fix warning in fs/proc/task_mmu.c;
> v2:
> - reuse CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS for PMD split lock;
> - s/huge_pmd_lock/pmd_lock/g;
> - assume pgtable_pmd_page_ctor() can fail;
> - fix format line in task_mem() for VmPTE;
>
> THP off, v3.12-rc2:
> -------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 1037072.835207 task-clock # 57.426 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.59% )
> 95,093 context-switches # 0.092 K/sec ( +- 3.93% )
> 140 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 5.28% )
> 10,000,550 page-faults # 0.010 M/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 2,455,210,400,261 cycles # 2.367 GHz ( +- 3.62% ) [83.33%]
> 2,429,281,882,056 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.94% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.67% ) [83.33%]
> 1,975,960,019,659 stalled-cycles-backend # 80.48% backend cycles idle ( +- 3.88% ) [66.68%]
> 46,503,296,013 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 52.24 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 3.21% ) [83.34%]
> 9,278,997,542 branches # 8.947 M/sec ( +- 4.00% ) [83.34%]
> 89,881,640 branch-misses # 0.97% of all branches ( +- 1.17% ) [83.33%]
>
> 18.059261877 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.65% )
>
> THP on, v3.12-rc2:
> ------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 3114745.395974 task-clock # 73.875 CPUs utilized ( +- 1.84% )
> 267,356 context-switches # 0.086 K/sec ( +- 1.84% )
> 99 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 1.40% )
> 58,313 page-faults # 0.019 K/sec ( +- 0.28% )
> 7,416,635,817,510 cycles # 2.381 GHz ( +- 1.83% ) [83.33%]
> 7,342,619,196,993 stalled-cycles-frontend # 99.00% frontend cycles idle ( +- 1.88% ) [83.33%]
> 6,267,671,641,967 stalled-cycles-backend # 84.51% backend cycles idle ( +- 2.03% ) [66.67%]
> 117,819,935,165 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 62.32 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 4.39% ) [83.34%]
> 28,899,314,777 branches # 9.278 M/sec ( +- 4.48% ) [83.34%]
> 71,787,032 branch-misses # 0.25% of all branches ( +- 1.03% ) [83.33%]
>
> 42.162306788 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1.73% )
THP on, v3.12-rc2:
------------------
Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -C 0 -m 0 -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
568668865.944994 task-clock # 528.547 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
1,491,589 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.25% ) [100.00%]
1,085 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.80% ) [100.00%]
400,822 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.41% )
1,306,612,476,049,478 cycles # 2.298 GHz ( +- 0.23% ) [100.00%]
1,277,211,694,318,724 stalled-cycles-frontend # 97.75% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
1,163,736,844,232,064 stalled-cycles-backend # 89.07% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.20% ) [100.00%]
53,855,178,678,230 instructions # 0.04 insns per cycle
# 23.72 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 1.15% ) [100.00%]
21,041,661,816,782 branches # 37.002 M/sec ( +- 0.64% ) [100.00%]
606,665,092 branch-misses # 0.00% of all branches ( +- 0.63% )
1075.909782795 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.21% )
> HUGETLB, v3.12-rc2:
> -------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale_hugetlbfs -c 80 -b 512M' (5 runs):
>
> 2588052.787264 task-clock # 54.400 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.69% )
> 246,831 context-switches # 0.095 K/sec ( +- 4.15% )
> 138 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 5.30% )
> 21,027 page-faults # 0.008 K/sec ( +- 0.01% )
> 6,166,666,307,263 cycles # 2.383 GHz ( +- 3.68% ) [83.33%]
> 6,086,008,929,407 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.69% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.77% ) [83.33%]
> 5,087,874,435,481 stalled-cycles-backend # 82.51% backend cycles idle ( +- 4.41% ) [66.67%]
> 133,782,831,249 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 45.49 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 4.30% ) [83.34%]
> 34,026,870,541 branches # 13.148 M/sec ( +- 4.24% ) [83.34%]
> 68,670,942 branch-misses # 0.20% of all branches ( +- 3.26% ) [83.33%]
>
> 47.574936948 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.09% )
>
> THP off, patched:
> -----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 943301.957892 task-clock # 56.256 CPUs utilized ( +- 3.01% )
> 86,218 context-switches # 0.091 K/sec ( +- 3.17% )
> 121 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 6.64% )
> 10,000,551 page-faults # 0.011 M/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 2,230,462,457,654 cycles # 2.365 GHz ( +- 3.04% ) [83.32%]
> 2,204,616,385,805 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.84% frontend cycles idle ( +- 3.09% ) [83.32%]
> 1,778,640,046,926 stalled-cycles-backend # 79.74% backend cycles idle ( +- 3.47% ) [66.69%]
> 45,995,472,617 instructions # 0.02 insns per cycle
> # 47.93 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 2.51% ) [83.34%]
> 9,179,700,174 branches # 9.731 M/sec ( +- 3.04% ) [83.35%]
> 89,166,529 branch-misses # 0.97% of all branches ( +- 1.45% ) [83.33%]
>
> 16.768027318 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.47% )
>
> THP on, patched:
> ----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -c 80 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 458793.837905 task-clock # 54.632 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.79% )
> 41,831 context-switches # 0.091 K/sec ( +- 0.97% )
> 98 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 1.66% )
> 57,829 page-faults # 0.126 K/sec ( +- 0.62% )
> 1,077,543,336,716 cycles # 2.349 GHz ( +- 0.81% ) [83.33%]
> 1,067,403,802,964 stalled-cycles-frontend # 99.06% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.87% ) [83.33%]
> 864,764,616,143 stalled-cycles-backend # 80.25% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.73% ) [66.68%]
> 16,129,177,440 instructions # 0.01 insns per cycle
> # 66.18 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 7.94% ) [83.35%]
> 3,618,938,569 branches # 7.888 M/sec ( +- 8.46% ) [83.36%]
> 33,242,032 branch-misses # 0.92% of all branches ( +- 2.02% ) [83.32%]
>
> 8.397885779 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.18% )
THP on, patched:
----------------
Performance counter stats for './runt -t -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
15836198.490485 task-clock # 533.304 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.95% ) [100.00%]
127,507 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.65% ) [100.00%]
1,223 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 3.23% ) [100.00%]
302,080 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 6.88% )
18,925,875,973,975 cycles # 1.195 GHz ( +- 0.43% ) [100.00%]
18,325,469,464,007 stalled-cycles-frontend # 96.83% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.44% ) [100.00%]
17,522,272,147,141 stalled-cycles-backend # 92.58% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.49% ) [100.00%]
2,686,490,067,197 instructions # 0.14 insns per cycle
# 6.82 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 2.16% ) [100.00%]
944,712,646,402 branches # 59.655 M/sec ( +- 2.03% ) [100.00%]
145,956,565 branch-misses # 0.02% of all branches ( +- 0.88% )
29.694499652 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.95% )
(these results are from the test suite that I ripped thp_memscale out
of, but it's the same test)
> HUGETLB, patched
> -----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale_hugetlbfs -c 80 -b 512M' (5 runs):
>
> 395353.076837 task-clock # 20.329 CPUs utilized ( +- 8.16% )
> 55,730 context-switches # 0.141 K/sec ( +- 5.31% )
> 138 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec ( +- 4.24% )
> 21,027 page-faults # 0.053 K/sec ( +- 0.00% )
> 930,219,717,244 cycles # 2.353 GHz ( +- 8.21% ) [83.32%]
> 914,295,694,103 stalled-cycles-frontend # 98.29% frontend cycles idle ( +- 8.35% ) [83.33%]
> 704,137,950,187 stalled-cycles-backend # 75.70% backend cycles idle ( +- 9.16% ) [66.69%]
> 30,541,538,385 instructions # 0.03 insns per cycle
> # 29.94 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 3.98% ) [83.35%]
> 8,415,376,631 branches # 21.286 M/sec ( +- 3.61% ) [83.36%]
> 32,645,478 branch-misses # 0.39% of all branches ( +- 3.41% ) [83.32%]
>
> 19.447481153 seconds time elapsed ( +- 2.00% )
>
> Kirill A. Shutemov (10):
> mm: rename USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS to USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS
> mm: convert mm->nr_ptes to atomic_t
> mm: introduce api for split page table lock for PMD level
> mm, thp: change pmd_trans_huge_lock() to return taken lock
> mm, thp: move ptl taking inside page_check_address_pmd()
> mm, thp: do not access mm->pmd_huge_pte directly
> mm, hugetlb: convert hugetlbfs to use split pmd lock
> mm: convent the rest to new page table lock api
> mm: implement split page table lock for PMD level
> x86, mm: enable split page table lock for PMD level
>
> arch/arm/mm/fault-armv.c | 6 +-
> arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 12 +--
> arch/sparc/mm/tlb.c | 12 +--
> arch/x86/Kconfig | 4 +
> arch/x86/include/asm/pgalloc.h | 11 ++-
> arch/x86/xen/mmu.c | 6 +-
> fs/proc/meminfo.c | 2 +-
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 16 ++--
> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 17 ++--
> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 25 +++++
> include/linux/mm.h | 52 ++++++++++-
> include/linux/mm_types.h | 18 ++--
> include/linux/swapops.h | 7 +-
> kernel/fork.c | 6 +-
> mm/Kconfig | 3 +
> mm/huge_memory.c | 201 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
> mm/hugetlb.c | 108 +++++++++++++---------
> mm/memcontrol.c | 10 +-
> mm/memory.c | 21 +++--
> mm/mempolicy.c | 5 +-
> mm/migrate.c | 14 +--
> mm/mmap.c | 3 +-
> mm/mprotect.c | 4 +-
> mm/oom_kill.c | 6 +-
> mm/pgtable-generic.c | 16 ++--
> mm/rmap.c | 15 ++-
> 26 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 221 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.4.rc3
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-04 20:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-27 13:16 [PATCHv4 00/10] split page table lock for PMD tables Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 01/10] mm: rename USE_SPLIT_PTLOCKS to USE_SPLIT_PTE_PTLOCKS Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 02/10] mm: convert mm->nr_ptes to atomic_t Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 20:46 ` Cody P Schafer
2013-09-27 20:46 ` Cody P Schafer
2013-09-27 21:01 ` Dave Hansen
2013-09-27 21:01 ` Dave Hansen
2013-09-27 22:24 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-28 0:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-09-28 0:13 ` Johannes Weiner
2013-09-28 16:12 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 03/10] mm: introduce api for split page table lock for PMD level Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 04/10] mm, thp: change pmd_trans_huge_lock() to return taken lock Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 05/10] mm, thp: move ptl taking inside page_check_address_pmd() Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 06/10] mm, thp: do not access mm->pmd_huge_pte directly Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 07/10] mm, hugetlb: convert hugetlbfs to use split pmd lock Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 08/10] mm: convent the rest to new page table lock api Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 09/10] mm: implement split page table lock for PMD level Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-03 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2013-10-03 23:11 ` Andrew Morton
2013-10-03 23:38 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-03 23:38 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-04 0:34 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-04 7:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-04 7:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-10-03 23:42 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` [PATCHv4 10/10] x86, mm: enable " Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-09-27 13:16 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-04 20:12 ` Alex Thorlton [this message]
2013-10-04 20:12 ` [PATCHv4 00/10] split page table lock for PMD tables Alex Thorlton
2013-10-04 20:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-04 20:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-04 20:31 ` Alex Thorlton
2013-10-04 20:31 ` Alex Thorlton
2013-10-07 9:48 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-07 9:48 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2013-10-08 21:47 ` Alex Thorlton
2013-10-08 21:47 ` Alex Thorlton
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=20131004201213.GB32110@sgi.com \
--to=athorlton@sgi.com \
--cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=dhowells@redhat.com \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=n-horiguchi@ah.jp.nec.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=robinmholt@gmail.com \
--cc=sedat.dilek@gmail.com \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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.