From: Yang Shi <yang@os.amperecomputing.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, Miko.Lenczewski@arm.com,
dev.jain@arm.com, scott@os.amperecomputing.com, cl@gentwo.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: mm: support large block mapping when rodata=full
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2025 17:44:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e1283b35-dcab-4d0c-a1e0-3ef938fa496a@os.amperecomputing.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b2d3e684-e3dc-41b5-9708-ca5926c55ebf@arm.com>
On 8/6/25 12:20 AM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 05/08/2025 19:53, Yang Shi wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> + arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>>> + ret = split_pgd(pgd_offset_k(start), start, end);
>>> My instinct still remains that it would be better not to iterate over the range
>>> here, but instead call a "split(start); split(end);" since we just want to split
>>> the start and end. So the code would be simpler and probably more performant if
>>> we get rid of all the iteration.
>> It should be more performant for splitting large range, especially the range
>> includes leaf mappings at different levels. But I had some optimization to skip
>> leaf mappings in this version, so it should be close to your implementation from
>> performance perspective. And it just walks the page table once instead of twice.
>> It should be more efficient for small split, for example, 4K.
> I guess this is the crux of our disagreement. I think the "walks the table once
> for 4K" is a micro optimization, which I doubt we would see on any benchmark
> results. In the absence of data, I'd prefer the simpler, smaller, easier to
> understand version.
I did a simple benchmark with module stressor from stress-ng. I used the
below command line:
stress-ng --module 1 --module-name loop --module-ops 1000
It basically loads loop module 1000 times. I saw a slight slowdown (2% -
3% slowdown, average time spent in 5 iterations) with your
implementation on my AmpereOne machine. It shouldn't result in any
noticeable slowdown for real life workloads per the data.
Thanks,
Yang
>
> Both implementations are on list now; perhaps the maintainers can steer us.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-08-07 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-24 22:11 [v5 PATCH 0/4] arm64: support FEAT_BBM level 2 and large block mapping when rodata=full Yang Shi
2025-07-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 1/4] arm64: Enable permission change on arm64 kernel block mappings Yang Shi
2025-07-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 2/4] arm64: cpufeature: add AmpereOne to BBML2 allow list Yang Shi
2025-08-01 14:36 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-04 23:20 ` Christoph Lameter (Ampere)
2025-07-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: mm: support large block mapping when rodata=full Yang Shi
2025-07-29 12:34 ` Dev Jain
2025-08-05 21:28 ` Yang Shi
2025-08-06 0:10 ` Yang Shi
2025-08-01 14:35 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-04 10:07 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-05 18:53 ` Yang Shi
2025-08-06 7:20 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-07 0:44 ` Yang Shi [this message]
2025-07-24 22:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] arm64: mm: split linear mapping if BBML2 is not supported on secondary CPUs Yang Shi
2025-07-26 11:10 ` kernel test robot
2025-08-01 16:14 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-05 18:59 ` Yang Shi
2025-08-05 7:54 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-08-05 17:45 ` Yang Shi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-05-31 2:41 [v4 PATCH 0/4] arm64: support FEAT_BBM level 2 and large block mapping when rodata=full Yang Shi
2025-05-31 2:41 ` [PATCH 3/4] arm64: mm: support " Yang Shi
2025-06-16 11:58 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-06-16 12:33 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-06-17 21:01 ` Yang Shi
2025-06-16 16:24 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-06-17 21:09 ` Yang Shi
2025-06-23 13:26 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-06-23 19:12 ` Yang Shi
2025-06-26 22:39 ` Yang Shi
2025-07-23 17:38 ` Dev Jain
2025-07-23 20:51 ` Yang Shi
2025-07-24 11:43 ` Dev Jain
2025-07-24 17:59 ` Yang Shi
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=e1283b35-dcab-4d0c-a1e0-3ef938fa496a@os.amperecomputing.com \
--to=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=Miko.Lenczewski@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=scott@os.amperecomputing.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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).