From: "Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: "Christophe Leroy" <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: ideas to improve page table frag allocator
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2022 14:24:52 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CMPVTG85ZRO2.V3C614SRD0RS@bobo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9598b359-733e-bcef-0a13-8cd01c8f3e2f@csgroup.eu>
On Tue Sep 6, 2022 at 4:36 AM AEST, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 05/09/2022 à 10:50, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
> > The page table fragment allocator is a simple per-mm slab allocator.
> > It can be quite wasteful of space for small processes, as well as being
> > expensive to initialise. It does not do well at NUMA awareness.
> >
> > This is a quick hack at addressing some of those problems, but it's not
> > complete. It doesn't support THP because it doesn't deal with the page
> > table deposit. It has has certain cases where cross-CPU locking could be
> > increased (but also a reduction in other cases including reduction on
> > ptl). NUMA still has some corner case issues, but it is improved. So
> > it's not mergeable yet or necessarily the best way to solve the
> > problems. Just a quick hack for some testing.
> >
> > It save 1-2MB on a simple distro boot on a small (4 CPU) system. The
> > powerpc fork selftests benchmark with --fork performance is improved by
> > 15% on a POWER9 (14.5k/s -> 17k/s). This is just about a worst-case
> > microbenchmark, but would still be good to fix it.
> >
> > What would really be nice is if we could avoid writing our own allocator
> > and use the slab allocator. The problem being we need a page table lock
> > spinlock associated with the page table, and that must be able to be
> > derived from the page table pointer, and I don't think slab has anything
> > that fits the bill.
>
> I have not looked at it in details yet, but I have the feeling that the
> handling of single-fragment architectures have disappeared.
Yes that's gone from my hack, it should be special-cased of course
to reduce or avoid unnecessary overhead.
Thanks,
Nick
>
> That's commit 2a146533bf96 ("powerpc/mm: Avoid useless lock with single
> page fragments").
>
> Thanks to that optimisation, all platforms were converted to page
> fragments with:
> - commit 32ea4c149990 ("powerpc/mm: Extend pte_fragment functionality to
> PPC32")
> - commit 737b434d3d55 ("powerpc/mm: convert Book3E 64 to pte_fragment")
>
>
> But if the optimisation is removed then I guess the cost will likely be
> higher than before.
>
> Christophe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-07 4:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-05 8:50 [RFC PATCH] powerpc: ideas to improve page table frag allocator Nicholas Piggin
2022-09-05 18:36 ` Christophe Leroy
2022-09-07 4:24 ` Nicholas Piggin [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=CMPVTG85ZRO2.V3C614SRD0RS@bobo \
--to=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.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).