[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200212152624.GA587247@arrakis.emea.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 15:26:24 +0000
From: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
To: "qi.fuli@...itsu.com" <qi.fuli@...itsu.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...masters.org>,
Rafael Aquini <aquini@...hat.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: tlb: skip tlbi broadcast for single threaded
TLB flushes
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 02:13:56PM +0000, qi.fuli@...itsu.com wrote:
> On 2/4/20 5:17 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > With multiple NUMA nodes and multiple sockets, the tlbi broadcast
> > shall be delivered through the interconnects in turn increasing the
> > interconnect traffic and the latency of the tlbi broadcast instruction.
> >
> > Even within a single NUMA node the latency of the tlbi broadcast
> > instruction increases almost linearly with the number of CPUs trying to
> > send tlbi broadcasts at the same time.
> >
> > When the process is single threaded however we can achieve full SMP
> > scalability by skipping the tlbi broadcasting. Other arches already
> > deploy this optimization.
> >
> > After the local TLB flush this however means the ASID context goes out
> > of sync in all CPUs except the local one. This can be tracked in the
> > mm_cpumask(mm): if the bit is set it means the asid context is stale
> > for that CPU. This results in an extra local ASID TLB flush only if a
> > single threaded process is migrated to a different CPU and only after a
> > TLB flush. No extra local TLB flush is needed for the common case of
> > single threaded processes context scheduling within the same CPU and for
> > multithreaded processes.
> >
> > Skipping the tlbi instruction broadcasting is already implemented in
> > local_flush_tlb_all(), this patch only extends it to flush_tlb_mm(),
> > flush_tlb_range() and flush_tlb_page() too.
> >
> > Here's the result of 32 CPUs (ARMv8 Ampere) running mprotect at the same
> > time from 32 single threaded processes before the patch:
> >
> > Performance counter stats for './loop' (3 runs):
> >
> > 0 dummy
> >
> > 2.121353 +- 0.000387 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.02% )
> >
> > and with the patch applied:
> >
> > Performance counter stats for './loop' (3 runs):
> >
> > 0 dummy
> >
> > 0.1197750 +- 0.0000827 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.07% )
>
> I have tested this patch on thunderX2 with Himeno benchmark[1] with
> LARGE calculation size. Here are the results.
>
> w/o patch: MFLOPS : 1149.480174
> w/ patch: MFLOPS : 1110.653003
>
> In order to validate the effectivness of the patch, I ran a
> single-threded program, which calls mprotect() in a loop to issue the
> tlbi broadcast instruction on a CPU core. At the same time, I ran Himeno
> benchmark on another CPU core. The results are:
>
> w/o patch: MFLOPS : 860.238792
> w/ patch: MFLOPS : 1110.449666
>
> Though Himeno benchmark is a microbenchmark, I hope it helps.
It doesn't really help. What if you have a two-thread program calling
mprotect() in a loop? IOW, how is this relevant to real-world scenarios?
Thanks.
--
Catalin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists