Date:   Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:46:27 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3 update] mm/free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy
 while not holding lock

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 01:58:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> > When a page is freed back to the global pool, its buddy will be checked
> > to see if it's possible to do a merge. This requires accessing buddy's
> > page structure and that access could take a long time if it's cache cold.
> > 
> > This patch adds a prefetch to the to-be-freed page's buddy outside of
> > zone->lock in hope of accessing buddy's page structure later under
> > zone->lock will be faster. Since we *always* do buddy merging and check
> > an order-0 page's buddy to try to merge it when it goes into the main
> > allocator, the cacheline will always come in, i.e. the prefetched data
> > will never be unused.
> > 
> > Normally, the number of to-be-freed pages(i.e. count) equals to
> > pcp->batch (default=31 and has an upper limit of (PAGE_SHIFT * 8)=96 on
> > x86_64) but in the case of pcp's pages getting all drained, it will be
> > pcp->count which has an upper limit of pcp->high. pcp->high, although
> > has a default value of 186 (pcp->batch=31 * 6), can be changed by user
> > through /proc/sys/vm/percpu_pagelist_fraction and there is no software
> > upper limit so could be large, like several thousand. For this reason,
> > only the last pcp->batch number of page's buddy structure is prefetched
> > to avoid excessive prefetching. pcp-batch is used because:
> > 1 most often, count == pcp->batch;
> > 2 it has an upper limit itself so we won't prefetch excessively.
> > 
> > Considering the possible large value of pcp->high, it also makes
> > sense to free the last added page first for cache hot's reason.
> > That's where the change of list_add_tail() to list_add() comes in
> > as we will free them from head to tail one by one.
> > 
> > In the meantime, there are two concerns:
> > 1 the prefetch could potentially evict existing cachelines, especially
> >   for L1D cache since it is not huge;
> > 2 there is some additional instruction overhead, namely calculating
> >   buddy pfn twice.
> > 
> > For 1, it's hard to say, this microbenchmark though shows good result but
> > the actual benefit of this patch will be workload/CPU dependant;
> > For 2, since the calculation is a XOR on two local variables, it's expected
> > in many cases that cycles spent will be offset by reduced memory latency
> > later. This is especially true for NUMA machines where multiple CPUs are
> > contending on zone->lock and the most time consuming part under zone->lock
> > is the wait of 'struct page' cacheline of the to-be-freed pages and their
> > buddies.
> > 
> > Test with will-it-scale/page_fault1 full load:
> > 
> > kernel      Broadwell(2S)  Skylake(2S)   Broadwell(4S)  Skylake(4S)
> > v4.16-rc2+  9034215        7971818       13667135       15677465
> > patch2/3    9536374 +5.6%  8314710 +4.3% 14070408 +3.0% 16675866 +6.4%
> > this patch 10180856 +6.8%  8506369 +2.3% 14756865 +4.9% 17325324 +3.9%
> > Note: this patch's performance improvement percent is against patch2/3.
> > 
> > (Changelog stolen from Dave Hansen and Mel Gorman's comments at
> > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/148a42d8-8306-2f2f-7f7c-86bc118f8ccd@intel.com)
> > 
> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180301062845.26038-4-aaron.lu@intel.com
> >
> > ...
> >
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -1141,6 +1141,9 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> >  			batch_free = count;
> >  
> >  		do {
> > +			unsigned long pfn, buddy_pfn;
> > +			struct page *buddy;
> > +
> >  			page = list_last_entry(list, struct page, lru);
> >  			/* must delete to avoid corrupting pcp list */
> >  			list_del(&page->lru);
> > @@ -1149,7 +1152,23 @@ static void free_pcppages_bulk(struct zone *zone, int count,
> >  			if (bulkfree_pcp_prepare(page))
> >  				continue;
> >  
> > -			list_add_tail(&page->lru, &head);
> > +			list_add(&page->lru, &head);
> 
> The result here will be that free_pcppages_bulk() frees the pages in
> the reverse order?

Yes, so that the last touched page will be freed first as the list of
pages will be freed from head to tail later.

This change is for the case when count is large(which is a rare case):
since the last touched pages and their buddies are more likely to be
still cache hot when later these pages are freed under lock, it seems
natural to free them first.

We can revert this change if it causes any trouble without affecting
performance much as count is not a large value most of the time.

> 
> I don't immediately see a downside to that.  In the (distant) past we
> had issues when successive alloc_page() calls would return pages in
> descending address order - that totally screwed up scatter-gather page
> merging.  But this is the page-freeing path.  Still, something to be
> thought about and monitored.

OK.

> 
> > +
> > +			/*
> > +			 * We are going to put the page back to the global
> > +			 * pool, prefetch its buddy to speed up later access
> > +			 * under zone->lock. It is believed the overhead of
> > +			 * an additional test and calculating buddy_pfn here
> > +			 * can be offset by reduced memory latency later. To
> > +			 * avoid excessive prefetching due to large count, only
> > +			 * prefetch buddy for the last pcp->batch nr of pages.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (count > pcp->batch)
> > +				continue;
> > +			pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> > +			buddy_pfn = __find_buddy_pfn(pfn, 0);
> > +			buddy = page + (buddy_pfn - pfn);
> > +			prefetch(buddy);
> >  		} while (--count && --batch_free && !list_empty(list));
> 
> This loop hurts my brain, mainly the handling of `count':
> 
> 	while (count) {
> 		do {
> 			batch_free++;
> 		} while (list_empty(list));
> 
> 		/* This is the only non-empty list. Free them all. */
> 		if (batch_free == MIGRATE_PCPTYPES)
> 			batch_free = count;
> 
> 		do {
> 		} while (--count && --batch_free && !list_empty(list));
> 	}
> 
> I guess it kinda makes sense - both loops terminate on count==0.  But
> still.  Can it be clarified?

That's right, count == 0 is the final termination condition.
count is decremented when a page is to be freed so:

	if (count > pcp->batch)
		continue;
	prefetch();

means to only prefetch for the last pcp->batch pages.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists