| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <3ac4b1a3-8067-3edb-be4f-326e2a4943ed@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 17:22:45 +0800
From: xhao@...ux.alibaba.com
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Darren Hart <darren@...amperecomputing.com>,
huzhanyuan@...o.com,
李培锋(wink) <lipeifeng@...o.com>,
张诗明(Simon Zhang)
<zhangshiming@...o.com>, 郭健 <guojian@...o.com>,
real mz <realmz6@...il.com>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
openrisc@...ts.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
"tiantao (H)" <tiantao6@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] mm: arm64: bring up BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH
On 7/20/22 7:18 PM, Barry Song wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:28 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...wei.com> wrote:
>> On 2022/7/14 12:51, Barry Song wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:29 PM Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi barry.
>>>>
>>>> I do some test on Kunpeng arm64 machine use Unixbench.
>>>>
>>>> The test result as below.
>>>>
>>>> One core, we can see the performance improvement above +30%.
>>> I am really pleased to see the 30%+ improvement on unixbench on single core.
>>>
>>>> ./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1
>>>> w/o
>>>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5481.0 1292.7
>>>> ========
>>>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1292.7
>>>>
>>>> w/
>>>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6974.6 1645.0
>>>> ========
>>>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1645.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But with whole cores, there have little performance degradation above -5%
>>> That is sad as we might get more concurrency between mprotect(), madvise(),
>>> mremap(), zap_pte_range() and the deferred tlbi.
>>>
>>>> ./Run -c 96 -i 1 shell1
>>>> w/o
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 80765.5 lpm (60.0 s, 1
>>>> samples)
>>>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 80765.5 19048.5
>>>> ========
>>>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 19048.5
>>>>
>>>> w
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 76333.6 lpm (60.0 s, 1
>>>> samples)
>>>> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
>>>> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 76333.6 18003.2
>>>> ========
>>>> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 18003.2
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After discuss with you, and do some changes in the patch.
>>>>
>>>> ndex a52381a680db..1ecba81f1277 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/rmap.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
>>>> @@ -727,7 +727,11 @@ void flush_tlb_batched_pending(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>>> int flushed = batch >> TLB_FLUSH_BATCH_FLUSHED_SHIFT;
>>>>
>>>> if (pending != flushed) {
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MM_CPUMASK
>>>> flush_tlb_mm(mm);
>>>> +#else
>>>> + dsb(ish);
>>>> +#endif
>>>>
>>> i was guessing the problem might be flush_tlb_batched_pending()
>>> so i asked you to change this to verify my guess.
>>>
>> flush_tlb_batched_pending() looks like the critical path for this issue then the code
>> above can mitigate this.
>>
>> I cannot reproduce this on a 2P 128C Kunpeng920 server. The kernel is based on the
>> v5.19-rc6 and unixbench of version 5.1.3. The result of `./Run -c 128 -i 1 shell1` is:
>> iter-1 iter-2 iter-3
>> w/o 17708.1 17637.1 17630.1
>> w 17766.0 17752.3 17861.7
>>
>> And flush_tlb_batched_pending()isn't the hot spot with the patch:
>> 7.00% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush
>> 4.17% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_set_access_flags
>> 2.43% multi.sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush
>> 1.98% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
>> 1.69% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] next_uptodate_page
>> 1.66% sort [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush
>> 1.56% multi.sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_set_access_flags
>> 1.27% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] page_counter_cancel
>> 1.11% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] page_remove_rmap
>> 1.06% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] perf_event_alloc
>>
>> Hi Xin Hao,
>>
>> I'm not sure the test setup as well as the config is same with yours. (96C vs 128C
>> should not be the reason I think). Did you check that the 5% is a fluctuation or
>> not? It'll be helpful if more information provided for reproducing this issue.
>>
>> Thanks.
> I guess that is because "./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1" isn't an application
> stressed on
> memory. Hi Xin, in what kinds of configurations can we reproduce your test
> result?
Oh, my fault, I do the test is not based on the lastest upstream kernel, there maybe some impact here,
i will do a new test on the lastest kernel.
> As I suppose tlbbatch will mainly affect the performance of user scenarios
> which require memory page-out/page-in like reclaiming file/anon pages.
> "./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1" on a system with sufficient free memory won't be
> affected by tlbbatch at all, I believe.
>
> Thanks
> Barry
--
Best Regards!
Xin Hao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists