From: "Colin King (gmail)" <colin.i.king@gmail.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] mm/mincore: improve performance by adding an unlikely hint
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:16:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbb812ea-4585-4777-aaae-3dcdcd0bd8d9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250217191351.0003a6f07d017d80762fae41@linux-foundation.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2221 bytes --]
On 18/02/2025 03:13, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 18:00:22 +0000 "Colin King (gmail)" <colin.i.king@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> fOn 17/02/2025 17:58, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 05:09:34PM +0000, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>>> Adding an unlikely() hint on the masked start comparison error
>>>> return path improves run-time performance of the mincore system call.
>>>>
>>>> Benchmarking on an i9-12900 shows an improvement of 7ns on mincore calls
>>>> on a 256KB mmap'd region where 50% of the pages we resident.
>>>>
>>>> Results based on running 20 tests with turbo disabled (to reduce
>>>> clock freq turbo changes), with 10 second run per test and comparing
>>>> the number of mincores calls per second. The % standard deviation of
>>>> the 20 tests was ~0.10%, so results are reliable.
>>>
>>> I think you've elided _just_ enough information here that nobody can
>>> judge whether your stats skills are any good ;-) You've told us 7ns
>>> (per call, presumably) and you've told us 0.10% standard deviation,
>>> but you haven't told us how long the syscall takes, so nobody can tell
>>> whether 7ns is within 0.10% or not ;-)
>>
>> Ugh, my bad.
>>
>> Improvement was from ~970 down to 963 ns, so small ~0.7% improvement.
>>
>
> It actually doesn't change the generated code:
I've compare the generated x86 object code using gcc 14.2.1 20240912
(Fedora 41) and 14.2.0 (Debian 14.2.0-17), 14.2.1 20250211 (Clear Linux)
and I get differences in the generated object code comparing old and
new, and the improvement on ClearLinux is more significant too because
it uses -O3. So I'm confident the change is generating improved object code.
>
> hp2:/usr/src/25> diff -u mm/mincore.lst.old mm/mincore.lst
> --- mm/mincore.lst.old 2025-02-17 19:11:34.093727411 -0800
> +++ mm/mincore.lst 2025-02-17 19:12:59.797009056 -0800
> @@ -1563,7 +1563,7 @@
> start = untagged_addr(start);
>
> /* Check the start address: needs to be page-aligned.. */
> - if (start & ~PAGE_MASK)
> + if (unlikely(start & ~PAGE_MASK))
> b27: 31 ff xor %edi,%edi
> asm (ALTERNATIVE("",
> b29: 90 nop
[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 4901 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 840 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-18 14:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-17 17:09 [PATCH][next] mm/mincore: improve performance by adding an unlikely hint Colin Ian King
2025-02-17 17:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-02-17 18:00 ` Colin King (gmail)
2025-02-18 3:13 ` Andrew Morton
2025-02-18 14:16 ` Colin King (gmail) [this message]
2025-02-19 0:08 ` Andrew Morton
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=cbb812ea-4585-4777-aaae-3dcdcd0bd8d9@gmail.com \
--to=colin.i.king@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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.