[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120816164356.GA30106@shutemov.name>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:43:56 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shu@...el.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] mm: make clear_huge_page cache clear only around
the fault address
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:16:47PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 06:15:53PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > for (i = 0; i < pages_per_huge_page;
> > i++, p = mem_map_next(p, page, i)) {
>
> It may be more optimal to avoid a multiplication/shiftleft before the
> add, and to do:
>
> for (i = 0, vaddr = haddr; i < pages_per_huge_page;
> i++, p = mem_map_next(p, page, i), vaddr += PAGE_SIZE) {
>
Makes sense. I'll update it.
> > cond_resched();
> > - clear_user_highpage(p, addr + i * PAGE_SIZE);
> > + vaddr = haddr + i*PAGE_SIZE;
>
> Not sure if gcc can optimize it away because of the external calls.
>
> > + if (!ARCH_HAS_USER_NOCACHE || i == target)
> > + clear_user_highpage(page + i, vaddr);
> > + else
> > + clear_user_highpage_nocache(page + i, vaddr);
> > }
>
>
> My only worry overall is if there can be some workload where this may
> actually slow down userland if the CPU cache is very large and
> userland would access most of the faulted in memory after the first
> fault.
>
> So I wouldn't mind to add one more check in addition of
> !ARCH_HAS_USER_NOCACHE above to check a runtime sysctl variable. It'll
> waste a cacheline yes but I doubt it's measurable compared to the time
> it takes to do a >=2M hugepage copy.
Hm.. I think with static_key we can avoid cache overhead here. I'll try.
> Furthermore it would allow people to benchmark its effect without
> having to rebuild the kernel themself.
>
> All other patches looks fine to me.
Thanks, for review. Could you take a look at huge zero page patchset? ;)
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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