From: kirill@shutemov.name (Kirill A. Shutemov)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Linux 3.19-rc3
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 02:35:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150110003540.GA32037@node.dhcp.inet.fi> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150109232707.GA6325@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 11:27:07PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 07:21:02PM +0000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > The only excuse for 64kB pages is "my hardware TLB is complete crap,
> > and I have very specialized server-only loads".
>
> I would make a slight correction: s/and/or/.
>
> I agree that for a general purpose system (and even systems like web
> hosting servers), 64KB is overkill; 16KB may be a better compromise.
>
> There are however some specialised loads that benefit from this. The
> main example here is virtualisation where if both guest and host use 4
> levels of page tables each (that's what you may get with 4KB pages on
> arm64), a full TLB miss in both stages of translation (the ARM
> terminology for nested page tables) needs up to _24_ memory accesses
> (though cached). Of course, once the TLB warms up, there will be much
> less but for new mmaps you always get some misses.
>
> With 64KB pages (in the host usually), you can reduce the page table
> levels to three or two (the latter for 42-bit VA) or you could even
> couple this with some insanely huge pages (512MB, the next up from 64KB)
> to decrease the number of levels further.
>
> I see three main advantages: the usual reduced TLB pressure (which
> arguably can be solved with bigger TLBs), less TLB misses and, pretty
> important with virtualisation, the cost of the TLB miss due to a reduced
> number of levels. But that's for the user to balance the advantages and
> disadvantages you already mentioned based on the planned workload (e.g.
> host configured with 64KB pages while guests use 4KB).
>
> Another aspect on ARM is the TLB flushing on (large) MP systems. With a
> larger page size, we reduce the number of TLB operation (in-hardware)
> broadcasting between CPUs (we could use non-broadcasting ops and IPIs,
> not sure they are any faster though).
With bigger page size there's also reduction in number of entities to
handle by kernel: less memory occupied by struct pages, fewer pages on
lru, etc.
Managing a lot of memory (TiB scale) with 4k chunks is just insane.
We will need to find a way to cluster memory together to manage it
reasonably. Whether it bigger base page size or some other mechanism.
Maybe THP? ;)
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-10 0:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CA+55aFwsxoyLb9OWMSCL3doe_cz_EQtKsEFCyPUYn_T87pbz0A@mail.gmail.com>
2015-01-08 12:51 ` Linux 3.19-rc3 Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-08 13:45 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-08 17:29 ` Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-08 17:34 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-08 18:48 ` Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-08 19:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-09 23:27 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-10 0:35 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2015-01-10 2:27 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-10 2:51 ` David Lang
2015-01-10 3:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-10 10:46 ` Andreas Mohr
2015-01-10 19:42 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-13 3:33 ` Rik van Riel
2015-01-13 10:28 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-10 3:17 ` Tony Luck
2015-01-10 20:16 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-10 21:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-10 21:36 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-10 21:48 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-12 11:37 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2015-01-12 12:18 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-12 13:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-12 14:23 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-12 15:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-12 11:53 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-01-12 13:15 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-01-08 15:08 ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-08 16:37 ` Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-09 15:56 ` Michal Hocko
2015-01-09 12:13 ` Mark Rutland
2015-01-09 14:19 ` Steve Capper
2015-01-09 14:27 ` Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-09 17:57 ` Mark Rutland
2015-01-09 18:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2015-01-09 19:43 ` Will Deacon
2015-01-10 3:29 ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-10 4:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-10 13:37 ` Will Deacon
2015-01-10 19:47 ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-10 19:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-10 20:08 ` Laszlo Ersek
2015-01-10 19:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-12 12:42 ` Will Deacon
2015-01-12 13:22 ` Mark Langsdorf
2015-01-12 19:03 ` Dave Hansen
2015-01-12 19:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-12 19:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-01-12 19:24 ` Will Deacon
2015-01-10 15:22 ` Kyle McMartin
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=20150110003540.GA32037@node.dhcp.inet.fi \
--to=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).