From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
shli@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hughd@google.com,
mgorman@suse.de, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86,mm: delay TLB flush after clearing accessed bit
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 12:53:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140401105318.GA2823@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140331113442.0d628362@annuminas.surriel.com>
The speedup looks good to me!
I have one major concern (see the last item), plus a few minor nits:
* Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> Doing an immediate TLB flush after clearing the accesed bit
s/accesed/accessed
> in page tables results in a lot of extra TLB flushes when there
> is memory pressure. This used to not be a problem, when swap
> was done to spinning disks, but with SSDs it is starting to
> become an issue.
s/This used to not be a problem/This did not use to be a problem
> However, clearing the accessed bit does not lead to any
> consistency issues, there is no reason to flush the TLB
> immediately. The TLB flush can be deferred until some
> later point in time.
>
> The lazy TLB flush code already has a data structure that
> is used at context switch time to determine whether or not
> the TLB needs to be flushed. The accessed bit clearing code
> can piggyback on top of that same data structure, allowing
> the context switch code to check whether a TLB flush needs
> to be forced when switching between the same mm, without
> incurring an additional cache miss.
>
> In Shaohua's multi-threaded test with a lot of swap to several
> PCIe SSDs, this patch results in about 20-30% swapout speedup,
> increasing swapout speed from 1.5GB/s to 1.85GB/s.
>
> Tested-by: Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>
> Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h | 5 ++++-
> arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h | 12 ++++++++++++
> arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c | 9 ++++++---
> 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> index be12c53..665d98b 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/mmu_context.h
> @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.state, TLBSTATE_OK);
> this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm, next);
> + this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.force_flush, false);
> #endif
> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next));
>
> @@ -57,7 +58,8 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.state, TLBSTATE_OK);
> BUG_ON(this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm) != next);
>
> - if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next))) {
> + if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(next)) ||
> + this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.force_flush)) {
Should this be unlikely() perhaps?
> /*
> * On established mms, the mm_cpumask is only changed
> * from irq context, from ptep_clear_flush() while in
> @@ -70,6 +72,7 @@ static inline void switch_mm(struct mm_struct *prev, struct mm_struct *next,
> * tlb flush IPI delivery. We must reload CR3
> * to make sure to use no freed page tables.
> */
> + this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.force_flush, false);
> load_cr3(next->pgd);
> load_LDT_nolock(&next->context);
> }
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> index 04905bf..f2cda2c 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/tlbflush.h
> @@ -151,6 +151,10 @@ static inline void reset_lazy_tlbstate(void)
> {
> }
>
> +static inline void tlb_set_force_flush(int cpu)
> +{
> +}
> +
> static inline void flush_tlb_kernel_range(unsigned long start,
> unsigned long end)
> {
> @@ -187,6 +191,7 @@ void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> struct tlb_state {
> struct mm_struct *active_mm;
> int state;
> + bool force_flush;
> };
> DECLARE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct tlb_state, cpu_tlbstate);
>
> @@ -196,6 +201,13 @@ static inline void reset_lazy_tlbstate(void)
> this_cpu_write(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm, &init_mm);
> }
>
> +static inline void tlb_set_force_flush(int cpu)
> +{
> + struct tlb_state *percputlb= &per_cpu(cpu_tlbstate, cpu);
s/b= /b = /
> + if (percputlb->force_flush == false)
> + percputlb->force_flush = true;
> +}
> +
> #endif /* SMP */
>
> #ifndef CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> index c96314a..dcd26e9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
> #include <asm/pgtable.h>
> #include <asm/tlb.h>
> #include <asm/fixmap.h>
> +#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
>
> #define PGALLOC_GFP GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOTRACK | __GFP_REPEAT | __GFP_ZERO
>
> @@ -399,11 +400,13 @@ int pmdp_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
> {
> - int young;
> + int young, cpu;
>
> young = ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
> - if (young)
> - flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
> + if (young) {
> + for_each_cpu(cpu, vma->vm_mm->cpu_vm_mask_var)
> + tlb_set_force_flush(cpu);
Hm, just to play the devil's advocate - what happens when we have a va
that is used on a few dozen, a few hundred or a few thousand CPUs?
Will the savings be dwarved by the O(nr_cpus_used) loop overhead?
Especially as this is touching cachelines on other CPUs and likely
creating the worst kind of cachemisses. That can really kill
performance.
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-01 10:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-31 15:34 [PATCH] x86,mm: delay TLB flush after clearing accessed bit Rik van Riel
2014-04-01 10:53 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2014-04-01 12:55 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-01 13:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-01 13:26 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-01 15:13 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-01 16:11 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-01 16:21 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-04-01 18:31 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-02 6:06 ` Shaohua Li
2014-04-02 7:46 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20140401105318.GA2823@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shli@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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