[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130920123137.BE2F7E0090@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:31:37 +0300 (EEST)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Alex Thorlton <athorlton@....com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Robin Holt <robinmholt@...il.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/9] split page table lock for PMD tables
Alex Thorlton wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 02:25:31PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Alex Thorlton noticed that some massivly threaded workloads work poorly,
> > if THP enabled. This patchset fixes this by introducing split page table
> > lock for PMD tables. hugetlbfs is not covered yet.
> >
> > This patchset is based on work by Naoya Horiguchi.
> >
> > Changes:
> > v2:
> > - reuse CONFIG_SPLIT_PTLOCK_CPUS for PMD split lock;
> > - s/huge_pmd_lock/pmd_lock/g;
> > - assume pgtable_pmd_page_ctor() can fail;
> > - fix format line in task_mem() for VmPTE;
> >
> > Benchmark (from Alex): ftp://shell.sgi.com/collect/appsx_test/pthread_test.tar.gz
> > Run on 4 socket Westmere with 128 GiB of RAM.
>
> Kirill,
>
> I'm hitting some performance issues with these patches on our larger
> machines (>=128 cores/256 threads). I've managed to livelock larger
> systems with one of our tests (I'll publish this one soon), and I'm
> actually seeing a performance hit on some of the smaller ones.
Does "performance hit" mean performance degradation?
> I'm currently collecting some results to show the problems I'm hitting, and
> trying to research what's causing the livelock. For now I just wanted to let
> you know that I'm seeing some issues. I'll be in touch with more details.
Looking forward for more details. Thanks for testing.
I'll try to find a bigger machine myself.
--
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