From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (e23smtp06.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 246A01A0846 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 12:06:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 20 May 2014 12:06:59 +1000 Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.152]) by d23dlp02.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C7A2BB0055 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 12:06:57 +1000 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s4K1jM5K35848366 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 11:45:23 +1000 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s4K26t4V018775 for ; Tue, 20 May 2014 12:06:56 +1000 Message-ID: <537AB8B2.3040000@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 07:36:42 +0530 From: Madhavan Srinivasan MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/2] mm: FAULT_AROUND_ORDER patchset performance data for powerpc References: <1399541296-18810-1-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <537479E7.90806@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87wqdik4n5.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <53797511.1050409@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, riel@redhat.com, x86@kernel.org, dave.hansen@intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ak@linux.intel.com, paulus@samba.org, mgorman@suse.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, mingo@kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tuesday 20 May 2014 04:53 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote: >>> Hugh Dickins writes: >>>> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ingo, >>>>> >>>>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If >>>>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With regards >>>>> Maddy >>>>> >>>>>> Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced >>>>>> vm_ops->map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around >>>>>> fault address in hope to reduce number of minor page faults. >>>>>> >>>>>> This patch creates infrastructure to modify the FAULT_AROUND_ORDER >>>>>> value using mm/Kconfig. This will enable architecture maintainers >>>>>> to decide on suitable FAULT_AROUND_ORDER value based on >>>>>> performance data for that architecture. First patch also defaults >>>>>> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig element to 4. Second patch list >>>>>> out the performance numbers for powerpc (platform pseries) and >>>>>> initialize the fault around order variable for pseries platform of >>>>>> powerpc. >>>> >>>> Sorry for not commenting earlier - just reminded by this ping to Ingo. >>>> >>>> I didn't study your numbers, but nowhere did I see what PAGE_SIZE you use. >>>> >>>> arch/powerpc/Kconfig suggests that Power supports base page size of >>>> 4k, 16k, 64k or 256k. >>>> >>>> I would expect your optimal fault_around_order to depend very much on >>>> the base page size. >>> >>> It was 64k, which is what PPC64 uses on all the major distributions. >>> You really only get a choice of 4k and 64k with 64 bit power. >>> >> This is true. PPC64 support multiple pagesize and yes the default page >> size of 64k, is taken as base pagesize for the tests. >> >>>> Perhaps fault_around_size would provide a more useful default? >>> >>> That seems to fit. With 4k pages and order 4, you're asking for 64k. >>> Maddy's result shows 64k is also reasonable for 64k pages. >>> >>> Perhaps we try to generalize from two data points (a slight improvement >>> over doing it from 1!), eg: >>> >>> /* 4 seems good for 4k-page x86, 0 seems good for 64k page ppc64, so: */ >>> unsigned int fault_around_order __read_mostly = >>> (16 - PAGE_SHIFT < 0 ? 0 : 16 - PAGE_SHIFT); > > Rusty's bimodal answer doesn't seem the right starting point to me. > > Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be > the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages() > use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT) > - when that doesn't wrap, of course! > > That would at least have a better chance of being appropriate for > architectures with 8k and 16k pages (Itanium springs to mind). > > Not necessarily right for them, since each architecture may have > different faulting overheads; but a better chance of being right > than blindly assuming 4k or 64k pages for everyone. > > I'd be glad to see that change go into v3.15: what do you think, > Kirill, are we too late to make such a change now? > Or do you see some objection to it? > >> This may be right. But these are the concerns, will not this make other >> arch to pick default without any tuning > > Wasn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4 chosen solely on the basis of x86 4k pages? > Did other architectures, with other page sizes, back that default? > Clearly not powerpc. Ok. > >> and also this will remove the >> compile time option to disable the feature? > > Compile time option meaning your FAULT_AROUND_ORDER in mm/Kconfig > for v3.16? > > I'm not sure whether Rusty was arguing against that or not I think > we are all three concerned to have a more sensible default than what's > there at present. I don't feel very strongly about your Kconfig Added it as one way to reset or disable the default value. But then I guess we decided on having FAULT_AROUND_ORDER as a variable which is more important than Kconfig option. > option: I've no objection, if it were to default to byte order 16. > Thanks for review With regards Maddy > Hugh >