Re: [RFC v4 00/20] Speculative page faults

[Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 09/06/2017 17:01, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 09-06-17 16:20:49, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> This is a port on kernel 4.12 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
>> handle page fault without holding the mm semaphore.
>>
>> http://linux-kernel.2935.n7.nabble.com/RFC-PATCH-0-6-Another-go-at-speculative-page-faults-tt965642.html#none
>>
>> Compared to the Peter initial work, this series introduce a try spin
>> lock when dealing with speculative page fault. This is required to
>> avoid dead lock when handling a page fault while a TLB invalidate is
>> requested by an other CPU holding the PTE. Another change due to a
>> lock dependency issue with mapping->i_mmap_rwsem.
>>
>> This series also protect changes to VMA's data which are read or
>> change by the page fault handler. The protections is done through the
>> VMA's sequence number.
>>
>> This series is functional on x86 and PowerPC.
>>
>> It's building on top of v4.12-rc4 and relies on the change done by
>> Paul McKenney to the SRCU code allowing better performance by
>> maintaining per-CPU callback lists:
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=da915ad5cf25b5f5d358dd3670c3378d8ae8c03e
>>
>> Tests have been made using a large commercial in-memory database on a
>> PowerPC system with 752 CPUs. The results are very encouraging since
>> the loading of the 2TB database was faster by 20% with the speculative
>> page fault.
>>
>> Since tests are encouraging and running test suite didn't raise any
>> issue, I'd like this request for comment series to move to a patch
>> series soon. So please feel free to comment.
> 
> What other testing have you done? Other benchmarks (some numbers)? What
> about some standard worklaods like kbench? This is a pretty invasive
> change so I would expect much more numbers.

Thanks Michal for your feedback.

I mostly focused on this database workload since this is the one where
we hit the mmap_sem bottleneck when running on big node. On my usual
victim node, I checked for basic usage like kernel build time, but I
agree that's clearly not enough.

I try to find details about the 'kbench' you mentioned, but I didn't get
any valid entry.
Would you please point me on this or any other bench tool you think will
be useful here ?

> 
> It would also help to describe the highlevel design of the change here
> in the cover letter. This would make the review of specifics much
> easier.

You're right, I'll try to make a highlevel design.

Thanks,
Laurent.

--
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>