From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: edwin <edwintorok@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
rml@tech9.net, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner mingo@redhat.com" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: Quad core CPUs loaded at only 50% when running a CPU and mmap intensive multi-threaded task
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:48:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080825134801.GN1408@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1219664477.8515.54.camel@twins>
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 01:41:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> I would certainly consider this for small (< 1M?) files. With mmap the
> faults and pte overhead aren't free either, and the extra memcpy from
> pread() isn't that much.
>
Even for very big files, if you're only doing a single sequential pass
over a very large file (for example when converting a Canon raw image
file to TIFF format --- I know because I was trying to optimize dcraw
a while aback), you take the page fault for each 4k page, and so
simply using read/pread is faster. And that's on a single-threded
program. With a multithreaded program, the locking issues come on top
of that.
Maybe if I had used hugepages it would have been a win, I suppose, but
I never tried the experiment. And this was several years ago, on much
older hardware, so maybe the relative times of doing the memory copy
versus the page fault, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's even more
expensive to do the mmap, relatively speaking.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-25 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <48B1CC15.2040006@gmail.com>
2008-08-25 5:51 ` Quad core CPUs loaded at only 50% when running a CPU and mmap intensive multi-threaded task Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 7:04 ` edwin
2008-08-25 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 9:49 ` Török Edwin
2008-08-25 10:02 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 10:22 ` Török Edwin
2008-08-25 10:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 11:00 ` edwin
2008-08-25 11:30 ` edwin
2008-08-25 11:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-08-25 13:48 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2008-08-26 8:12 ` Andi Kleen
2008-09-08 19:10 ` Török Edwin
2008-09-12 19:16 ` mmap/munmap latency on multithreaded apps, because pagefaults hold mmap_sem during disk read Török Edwin
2008-09-12 19:35 ` Mike Waychison
2008-09-12 20:10 ` Török Edwin
2008-08-25 10:37 ` Quad core CPUs loaded at only 50% when running a CPU and mmap intensive multi-threaded task Peter Zijlstra
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=20080825134801.GN1408@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=edwintorok@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rml@tech9.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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