From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@hp.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
"AneeshKumarK.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@gmail.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@mgebm.net>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@openvz.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:21:28 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130807092128.GE32449@lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1375834084.2134.44.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 05:08:04PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 15:18 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 07:27:23AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > This patchset attempts to reduce the amount of contention we impose
> > > on the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex by replacing the global mutex with
> > > a table of mutexes, selected based on a hash. The original discussion can
> > > be found here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/12/428
> >
> > Hello, Davidlohr.
> >
> > I recently sent a patchset which remove the hugetlb_instantiation_mutex
> > entirely ('mm, hugetlb: remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex').
> > This patchset can be found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/29/54
> >
> > If possible, could you review it and test it whether your problem is
> > disappered with it or not?
>
> This patchset applies on top of https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/22/96
> "[PATCH v2 00/10] mm, hugetlb: clean-up and possible bug fix", right?
>
> AFAIK those changes are the ones Andrew picked up a few weeks ago and
> are now in linux-next, right? I was able to apply those just fine, but
> couldn't apply your 'remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex series' (IIRC
> pach 1/18 failed). I guess you'll send out a v2 anyway so I'll wait
> until then.
>
> In any case I'm not seeing an actual performance issue with the
> hugetlb_instantiation_mutex, all I noticed was that under large DB
> workloads that make use of hugepages, such as Oracle, this lock becomes
> quite hot during the first few minutes of startup, which makes sense in
> the fault path it is contended. So I'll try out your patches, but, in
> this particular case, I just cannot compare with the lock vs without the
> lock situations.
Okay. I just want to know that lock contention is reduced by my patches
in the first few minutes of startup. I will send v2 soon.
Thanks.
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-07 9:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-26 14:27 [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] hugepage: protect file regions with rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-26 14:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] hugepage: allow parallelization of the hugepage fault path Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-28 6:00 ` Hillf Danton
2013-07-29 19:16 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-07-29 6:18 ` [PATCH 0/2] hugepage: optimize page fault path locking Joonsoo Kim
2013-08-07 0:08 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2013-08-07 9:21 ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
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=20130807092128.GE32449@lge.com \
--to=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=david@gibson.dropbear.id.au \
--cc=davidlohr.bueso@hp.com \
--cc=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=dhillf@gmail.com \
--cc=emunson@mgebm.net \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=khlebnikov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=walken@google.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 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).