[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrXfnkLKv-jJzquj+547QWiwEBSxKtM3du3UqK80FNSSGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 10:00:34 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>
Cc: "luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"mroos@...ux.ee" <mroos@...ux.ee>,
"redgecombe.lkml@...il.com" <redgecombe.lkml@...il.com>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"namit@...are.com" <namit@...are.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"sparclinux@...r.kernel.org" <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] vmalloc: Remove work as from vfree path
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 9:51 AM Edgecombe, Rick P
<rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2019-05-21 at 09:17 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 4:39 PM Rick Edgecombe
> > <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com> wrote:
> > > From: Rick Edgecombe <redgecombe.lkml@...il.com>
> > >
> > > Calling vm_unmap_alias() in vm_remove_mappings() could potentially
> > > be a
> > > lot of work to do on a free operation. Simply flushing the TLB
> > > instead of
> > > the whole vm_unmap_alias() operation makes the frees faster and
> > > pushes
> > > the heavy work to happen on allocation where it would be more
> > > expected.
> > > In addition to the extra work, vm_unmap_alias() takes some locks
> > > including
> > > a long hold of vmap_purge_lock, which will make all other
> > > VM_FLUSH_RESET_PERMS vfrees wait while the purge operation happens.
> > >
> > > Lastly, page_address() can involve locking and lookups on some
> > > configurations, so skip calling this by exiting out early when
> > > !CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP.
> >
> > Hmm. I would have expected that the major cost of vm_unmap_aliases()
> > would be the flush, and at least informing the code that the flush
> > happened seems valuable. So would guess that this patch is actually
> > a
> > loss in throughput.
> >
> You are probably right about the flush taking the longest. The original
> idea of using it was exactly to improve throughput by saving a flush.
> However with vm_unmap_aliases() the flush will be over a larger range
> than before for most arch's since it will likley span from the module
> space to vmalloc. From poking around the sparc tlb flush history, I
> guess the lazy purges used to be (still are?) a problem for them
> because it would try to flush each page individually for some CPUs. Not
> sure about all of the other architectures, but for any implementation
> like that, using vm_unmap_alias() would turn an occasional long
> operation into a more frequent one.
>
> On x86, it shouldn't be a problem to use it. We already used to call
> this function several times around a exec permission vfree.
>
> I guess its a tradeoff that depends on how fast large range TLB flushes
> usually are compared to small ones. I am ok dropping it, if it doesn't
> seem worth it.
On x86, a full flush is probably not much slower than just flushing a
page or two -- the main cost is in the TLB refill. I don't know about
other architectures. I would drop this patch unless you have numbers
suggesting that it's a win.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists