[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140424104147.GU23991@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 11:46:53 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
ak@...ux.intel.com, riel@...hat.com, alex.shi@...aro.org,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] x86: mm: set TLB flush tunable to sane value (33)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:24:28AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This has been run through Intel's LKP tests across a wide range
> of modern sytems and workloads and it wasn't shown to make a
> measurable performance difference positive or negative.
>
> Now that we have some shiny new tracepoints, we can actually
> figure out what the heck is going on.
>
Good stuff. This is the type of thing I should have done the last time
to set the parameters for the tlbflush microbench. Nice one out of you!
> During a kernel compile, 60% of the flush_tlb_mm_range() calls
> are for a single page. It breaks down like this:
>
> size percent percent<=
> V V V
> GLOBAL: 2.20% 2.20% avg cycles: 2283
> 1: 56.92% 59.12% avg cycles: 1276
> 2: 13.78% 72.90% avg cycles: 1505
> 3: 8.26% 81.16% avg cycles: 1880
> 4: 7.41% 88.58% avg cycles: 2447
> 5: 1.73% 90.31% avg cycles: 2358
> 6: 1.32% 91.63% avg cycles: 2563
> 7: 1.14% 92.77% avg cycles: 2862
> 8: 0.62% 93.39% avg cycles: 3542
> 9: 0.08% 93.47% avg cycles: 3289
> 10: 0.43% 93.90% avg cycles: 3570
> 11: 0.20% 94.10% avg cycles: 3767
> 12: 0.08% 94.18% avg cycles: 3996
> 13: 0.03% 94.20% avg cycles: 4077
> 14: 0.02% 94.23% avg cycles: 4836
> 15: 0.04% 94.26% avg cycles: 5699
> 16: 0.06% 94.32% avg cycles: 5041
> 17: 0.57% 94.89% avg cycles: 5473
> 18: 0.02% 94.91% avg cycles: 5396
> 19: 0.03% 94.95% avg cycles: 5296
> 20: 0.02% 94.96% avg cycles: 6749
> 21: 0.18% 95.14% avg cycles: 6225
> 22: 0.01% 95.15% avg cycles: 6393
> 23: 0.01% 95.16% avg cycles: 6861
> 24: 0.12% 95.28% avg cycles: 6912
> 25: 0.05% 95.32% avg cycles: 7190
> 26: 0.01% 95.33% avg cycles: 7793
> 27: 0.01% 95.34% avg cycles: 7833
> 28: 0.01% 95.35% avg cycles: 8253
> 29: 0.08% 95.42% avg cycles: 8024
> 30: 0.03% 95.45% avg cycles: 9670
> 31: 0.01% 95.46% avg cycles: 8949
> 32: 0.01% 95.46% avg cycles: 9350
> 33: 3.11% 98.57% avg cycles: 8534
> 34: 0.02% 98.60% avg cycles: 10977
> 35: 0.02% 98.62% avg cycles: 11400
>
> We get in to dimishing returns pretty quickly. On pre-IvyBridge
> CPUs, we used to set the limit at 8 pages, and it was set at 128
> on IvyBrige. That 128 number looks pretty silly considering that
> less than 0.5% of the flushes are that large.
>
> The previous code tried to size this number based on the size of
> the TLB. Good idea, but it's error-prone, needs maintenance
> (which it didn't get up to now), and probably would not matter in
> practice much.
>
> Settting it to 33 means that we cover the mallopt
> M_TRIM_THRESHOLD, which is the most universally common size to do
> flushes.
>
A kernel compile is hardly a representative workload but I accept the
logic of tuning it based on current settings for M_TRIM_THRESHOLD and
the tools are there to do a more detailed analysis if tlb flush times
for people are identified as being a problem.
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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