[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7a5dc9ce-b58f-e1b3-db1a-d00a8a556ae5@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:10:40 +0800
From: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
To: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Liu, Yujie" <yujie.liu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Reduce preallocations for maple tree
Hi Liam,
On 6/1/2023 10:15 AM, Liam R. Howlett wrote:
> Initial work on preallocations showed no regression in performance
> during testing, but recently some users (both on [1] and off [android]
> list) have reported that preallocating the worst-case number of nodes
> has caused some slow down. This patch set addresses the number of
> allocations in a few ways.
>
> During munmap() most munmap() operations will remove a single VMA, so
> leverage the fact that the maple tree can place a single pointer at
> range 0 - 0 without allocating. This is done by changing the index in
> the 'sidetree'.
>
> Re-introduce the entry argument to mas_preallocate() so that a more
> intelligent guess of the node count can be made.
>
> Patches are in the following order:
> 0001-0002: Testing framework for benchmarking some operations
> 0003-0004: Reduction of maple node allocation in sidetree
> 0005: Small cleanup of do_vmi_align_munmap()
> 0006-0013: mas_preallocate() calculation change
> 0014: Change the vma iterator order
I did run The AIM:page_test on an IceLake 48C/96T + 192G RAM platform with
this patchset.
The result has a little bit improvement:
Base (next-20230602):
503880
Base with this patchset:
519501
But they are far from the none-regression result (commit 7be1c1a3c7b1):
718080
Some other information I collected:
With Base, the mas_alloc_nodes are always hit with request: 7.
With this patchset, the request are 1 or 5.
I suppose this is the reason for improvement from 503880 to 519501.
With commit 7be1c1a3c7b1, mas_store_gfp() in do_brk_flags never triggered
mas_alloc_nodes() call. Thanks.
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202305061457.ac15990c-yujie.liu@intel.com/
>
> Liam R. Howlett (14):
> maple_tree: Add benchmarking for mas_for_each
> maple_tree: Add benchmarking for mas_prev()
> mm: Move unmap_vmas() declaration to internal header
> mm: Change do_vmi_align_munmap() side tree index
> mm: Remove prev check from do_vmi_align_munmap()
> maple_tree: Introduce __mas_set_range()
> mm: Remove re-walk from mmap_region()
> maple_tree: Re-introduce entry to mas_preallocate() arguments
> mm: Use vma_iter_clear_gfp() in nommu
> mm: Set up vma iterator for vma_iter_prealloc() calls
> maple_tree: Move mas_wr_end_piv() below mas_wr_extend_null()
> maple_tree: Update mas_preallocate() testing
> maple_tree: Refine mas_preallocate() node calculations
> mm/mmap: Change vma iteration order in do_vmi_align_munmap()
>
> fs/exec.c | 1 +
> include/linux/maple_tree.h | 23 ++++-
> include/linux/mm.h | 4 -
> lib/maple_tree.c | 78 ++++++++++----
> lib/test_maple_tree.c | 74 +++++++++++++
> mm/internal.h | 40 ++++++--
> mm/memory.c | 16 ++-
> mm/mmap.c | 171 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> mm/nommu.c | 45 ++++----
> tools/testing/radix-tree/maple.c | 59 ++++++-----
> 10 files changed, 331 insertions(+), 180 deletions(-)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists