[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANN689G7KgUFQLNnukfHL5JSW-Zu=WuzVbyhYBJUxEsUUyDHMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:31:23 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
To: Roman Dubtsov <dubtsov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: mmap() scalability in the presence of the MAP_POPULATE flag
Hi Roman,
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Roman Dubtsov <dubtsov@...il.com> wrote:
>> - POPULATE_VIA_LOOP -- makes the test populate memory using a loop
>> - POPULATE_VIA_MMAP -- makes the test populate memory via MAP_POPULATE
>>
> Heh, very interesting. As it turns out, the problem gets MUCH worse as
> the number of threads increase.
>
> In the POPULATE_VIA_MMAP, follow_page() is called at 4KB increment
> addresses, and it takes the mm->page_table_lock 511 times out of 512
> (that is, every time it falls within a huge page that's just been
> populated). So all OMP_NUM_THREADS threads are constantly bouncing
> over the mm->page_table_lock, and getting terrible performance as a
> result.
FYI, the patchset I just sent out ("fixes for large mm_populate() and
munlock() operations") takes care of this and brings POPULATE_VIA_MMAP
performance up where it should be.
Thanks a lot for the report, as I hadn't noticed this issue before :)
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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