[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <493A4C1C.3020102@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 11:55:40 +0200
From: Török Edwin <edwintorok@...il.com>
To: Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Mike Waychison <mikew@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Rohit Seth <rohitseth@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Lee Schermerhorn <lee.schermerhorn@...com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2][PATCH]page_fault retry with NOPAGE_RETRY
On 2008-12-06 11:52, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 2008-12-05 21:40, Ying Han wrote:
>
>> changelog[v2]:
>> - reduce the runtime overhead by extending the 'write' flag of
>> handle_mm_fault() to indicate the retry hint.
>> - add another two branches in filemap_fault with retry logic.
>> - replace find_lock_page with find_lock_page_retry to make the code
>> cleaner.
>>
>> todo:
>> - there is potential a starvation hole with the retry. By the time the
>> retry returns, the pages might be released. we can make change by holding
>> page reference as well as remembering what the page "was"(in case the
>> file was truncated). any suggestion here are welcomed.
>>
>> I also made patches for all other arch. I am posting x86_64 here first and
>> i will post others by the time everyone feels comfortable of this patch.
>>
>> Edwin, please test this patch with your testcase and check if you get any
>> performance improvement of mmap over read. I added another two more places
>> in filemap_fault with retry logic which you might hit in your privous
>> experiment.
>>
>>
>
> I get much better results with this patch than with v1, thanks!
>
> mmap now scales almost as well as read does (there is a small ~5%
> overhead), which is a significant improvement over not scaling at all!
>
> Here are the results when running my testcase:
>
> Number of threads ->, 1,,, 2,,, 4,,, 8,,, 16
> Kernel version, read, mmap, mixed, read, mmap, mixed, read, mmap, mixed,
> read, mmap, mixed, read, mmap, mixed
> 2.6.28-rc7-tip, 27.55, 26.18, 27.06, 16.18, 16.97, 16.10, 11.06, 11.64,
> 11.41, 9.38, 9.97, 9.31, 9.37, 9.82, 9.3
>
>
> Here are the /proc/lock_stat output when running my testcase, contention
> is lower (34911+10462 vs 58590+7231), and waittime-total is better
> (57 601 464 vs 234 170 024)
>
> lock_stat version 0.3
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> class name con-bounces contentions
> waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total acq-bounces
> acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> &mm->mmap_sem-W: 5843
> 10462 2.89 138824.72 14217159.52
> 18965 84205 1.81 5031.07 725293.65
> &mm->mmap_sem-R: 20208
> 34911 4.87 136797.26 57601464.49 55797
> 1110394 1.89 164918.52 30551371.71
> ---------------
> &mm->mmap_sem 5341
> [<ffffffff802bf9d7>] sys_munmap+0x47/0x80
> &mm->mmap_sem 28579
> [<ffffffff805d1c62>] do_page_fault+0x172/0xab0
> &mm->mmap_sem 5030
> [<ffffffff80211161>] sys_mmap+0xf1/0x140
> &mm->mmap_sem 6331
> [<ffffffff802a675e>] find_lock_page_retry+0xde/0xf0
> ---------------
> &mm->mmap_sem 13558
> [<ffffffff802a675e>] find_lock_page_retry+0xde/0xf0
> &mm->mmap_sem 4694
> [<ffffffff802bf9d7>] sys_munmap+0x47/0x80
> &mm->mmap_sem 3681
> [<ffffffff80211161>] sys_mmap+0xf1/0x140
> &mm->mmap_sem 23374
> [<ffffffff805d1c62>] do_page_fault+0x172/0xab0
>
>
> On clamd:
>
> Here holdtime-total is better (1 493 154 + 2 395 987 vs 2 087 538 + 2
> 514 673), and number of contentions on read
> (458 052 vs 5851
typo, should have been: 458 052 vs 585 119
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists