linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Pravin Shelar <pshelar@nicira.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@solarflare.com>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization v2
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:27:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <528BC9AA.5020300@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <528A56A7.3020301@oracle.com>

On 11/18/2013 11:04 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
> On 11/15/2013 10:47 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 1/3 is a bugfix so it should be applied more urgently. 1/3 is not as
>> fast as the current upstream code in the hugetlbfs + directio extreme
>> 8GB/sec benchmark (but 3/3 should fill the gap later). The code is
>> identical to the one I posted in v1 just rebased on upstream and was
>> developed in collaboration with Khalid who already tested it.
>>
>> 2/3 and 3/3 had very little testing yet, and they're incremental
>> optimization. 2/3 is minor and most certainly worth applying later.
>>
>> 3/3 instead complicates things a bit and adds more branches to the THP
>> fast paths, so it should only be applied if the benchmarks of
>> hugetlbfs + directio show that it is very worthwhile (that has not
>> been verified yet). If it's not worthwhile 3/3 should be dropped (and
>> the gap should be filled in some other way if the gap is not caused by
>> the _mapcount mangling as I guessed). Ideally this should bring even
>> more performance than current upstream code, as current upstream code
>> still increased the _mapcount in gup_fast by mistake, while this
>> eliminates the locked op on the tail page cacheline in gup_fast too
>> (which is required for correctness too).
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> I ran directio benchmark and here are the performance numbers (MBytes/sec):
>
> Block size        3.12         3.12+patch 1      3.12+patch 1,2,3
> ----------        ----         ------------      ----------------
> 1M                8467           8114              7648
> 64K               4049           4043              4175
>
> Performance numbers with 64K reads look good but there is further
> deterioration with 1M reads.
>
> --
> Khalid

Hi Andrea,

I found that a background task running on my test server had influenced 
the performance numbers for 1M reads. I cleaned that problem up and 
re-ran the test. I am seeing 8456 MB/sec with all three patches applied, 
so 1M number is looking good as well.

--
Khalid

--
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:[~2013-11-19 20:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-15 17:47 [PATCH 0/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization v2 Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-15 17:47 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-19 23:11   ` Andrew Morton
2013-11-20  0:26     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-15 17:47 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: hugetlb: use get_page_foll in follow_hugetlb_page Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-19 21:27   ` Khalid Aziz
2013-11-15 17:47 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: tail page refcounting optimization for slab and hugetlbfs Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-19 21:27   ` Khalid Aziz
2013-11-19 23:14   ` Andrew Morton
2013-11-20  0:20     ` Andrea Arcangeli
2013-11-18 18:04 ` [PATCH 0/3] mm: hugetlbfs: fix hugetlbfs optimization v2 Khalid Aziz
2013-11-19 20:27   ` Khalid Aziz [this message]
2013-11-19 22:52     ` Andrea Arcangeli

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=528BC9AA.5020300@oracle.com \
    --to=khalid.aziz@oracle.com \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
    --cc=bhutchings@solarflare.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=pshelar@nicira.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).