All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Brian Twichell <tbrian@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
	Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] New version of shared page tables
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:17:38 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44641A72.8050801@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <446242CB.4090106@us.ibm.com>

Brian Twichell wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:

>> Of course if it was free performance then we'd want it. The downsides 
>> are that it
>> is a significant complexity for a pretty small (3%) performance gain 
>> for your apparent
>> target workload, which is pretty uncommon among all Linux users.
> 
> 
> Our performance data demonstrated that the potential gain for the 
> non-hugepage case is much higher than 3%.

The point is, there are hugepages. They were a significant additional
complexity but the concession was made because they did provide a
large speedup for databases.

> 
>>
>> Ignoring the complexity, it is still not free. Sharing data across 
>> processes adds to
>> synchronisation overhead and hurts scalability. Some of these page 
>> fault scalability
>> scenarios have shown to be important enough that we have introduced 
>> complexity _there_.
> 
> 
> True, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that pagetable 
> sharing will reduce the number of page faults when it is achieved.  
> Let's say you have N processes which touch all the pages in an M page 
> shared memory region.  Without shared pagetables this requires N*M page 
> faults; if pagetable sharing is achieved, only M pagefaults are required.
> 
>>
>> And it seems customers running "out-of-the-box" settings really want 
>> to start using
>> hugepages if they're interested in getting the most performance 
>> possible, no?
> 
> 
> My perspective is that, once the customer is required to invoke "echo 
> XXX > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages" they've left the "out-of-the-box" 
> domain, and entered the domain of hoping that the number of hugepages is 
> sufficient, because if it's not, they'll probably need to reboot, which 
> can be pretty inconvenient for a production transaction-processing 
> application.

I think it is pretty easy to reserve hugepages at bootup. This is what
a production transaction processing system will be doing, won't it?
Especially if they're performance constrained and hugepages gives them
a 30% performance boost.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Brian Twichell <tbrian@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
	Dave McCracken <dmccr@us.ibm.com>,
	Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2][RFC] New version of shared page tables
Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:17:38 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <44641A72.8050801@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <446242CB.4090106@us.ibm.com>

Brian Twichell wrote:
> Nick Piggin wrote:

>> Of course if it was free performance then we'd want it. The downsides 
>> are that it
>> is a significant complexity for a pretty small (3%) performance gain 
>> for your apparent
>> target workload, which is pretty uncommon among all Linux users.
> 
> 
> Our performance data demonstrated that the potential gain for the 
> non-hugepage case is much higher than 3%.

The point is, there are hugepages. They were a significant additional
complexity but the concession was made because they did provide a
large speedup for databases.

> 
>>
>> Ignoring the complexity, it is still not free. Sharing data across 
>> processes adds to
>> synchronisation overhead and hurts scalability. Some of these page 
>> fault scalability
>> scenarios have shown to be important enough that we have introduced 
>> complexity _there_.
> 
> 
> True, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that pagetable 
> sharing will reduce the number of page faults when it is achieved.  
> Let's say you have N processes which touch all the pages in an M page 
> shared memory region.  Without shared pagetables this requires N*M page 
> faults; if pagetable sharing is achieved, only M pagefaults are required.
> 
>>
>> And it seems customers running "out-of-the-box" settings really want 
>> to start using
>> hugepages if they're interested in getting the most performance 
>> possible, no?
> 
> 
> My perspective is that, once the customer is required to invoke "echo 
> XXX > /proc/sys/vm/nr_hugepages" they've left the "out-of-the-box" 
> domain, and entered the domain of hoping that the number of hugepages is 
> sufficient, because if it's not, they'll probably need to reboot, which 
> can be pretty inconvenient for a production transaction-processing 
> application.

I think it is pretty easy to reserve hugepages at bootup. This is what
a production transaction processing system will be doing, won't it?
Especially if they're performance constrained and hugepages gives them
a 30% performance boost.

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2006-05-12  5:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-05-03 15:43 [PATCH 0/2][RFC] New version of shared page tables Dave McCracken
2006-05-03 15:43 ` Dave McCracken
2006-05-03 15:56 ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-03 15:56   ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-03 16:06   ` Dave McCracken
2006-05-03 16:06     ` Dave McCracken
2006-05-06 15:25     ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-06 15:25       ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-08 19:32       ` Ray Bryant
2006-05-08 19:32         ` Ray Bryant
2006-05-16 21:09         ` Dave McCracken
2006-05-16 21:09           ` Dave McCracken
2006-05-19 16:55           ` Ray Bryant
2006-05-19 16:55             ` Ray Bryant
2006-05-22 18:00           ` Ray Bryant
2006-05-08 19:49       ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-08 19:49         ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-09  3:42         ` Nick Piggin
2006-05-09  3:42           ` Nick Piggin
2006-05-10  2:07           ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-10  2:07             ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-10 19:45           ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-10 19:45             ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-12  5:17             ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2006-05-12  5:17               ` Nick Piggin
2006-05-09 19:22         ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-09 19:22           ` Hugh Dickins
2006-05-05 19:25 ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-05 19:25   ` Brian Twichell
2006-05-06  3:37   ` Chen, Kenneth W
2006-05-06  3:37     ` Chen, Kenneth W

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=44641A72.8050801@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=dmccr@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tbrian@us.ibm.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.