[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4fb5f66d-c8c2-f857-7461-b974154dbc2b@bytedance.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2023 15:59:32 +0800
From: Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>
To: "Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Cc: maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Liu, Yujie" <yujie.liu@...el.com>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Reduce preallocations for maple tree
在 2023/6/5 14:18, Yin, Fengwei 写道:
>
>
> On 6/5/2023 12:41 PM, Yin Fengwei wrote:
>> Hi Peng,
>>
>> On 6/5/23 11:28, Peng Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2023/6/2 16:10, Yin, Fengwei 写道:
>>>> 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.
>>> Hi Fengwei,
>>>
>>> I think it may be related to the inaccurate number of nodes allocated
>>> in the pre-allocation. I slightly modified the pre-allocation in this
>>> patchset, but I don't know if it works. It would be great if you could
>>> help test it, and help pinpoint the cause. Below is the diff, which can
>>> be applied based on this pachset.
>> I tried the patch, it could eliminate the call of mas_alloc_nodes() during
>> the test. But the result of benchmark got a little bit improvement:
>> 529040
>>
>> But it's still much less than none-regression result. I will also double
>> confirm the none-regression result.
> Just noticed that the commit f5715584af95 make validate_mm() two implementation
> based on CONFIG_DEBUG_VM instead of CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_MAPPLE_TREE). I have
> CONFIG_DEBUG_VM but not CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_MAPPLE_TREE defined. So it's not an
> apple to apple.
>
>
> I disable CONFIG_DEBUG_VM and re-run the test and got:
> Before preallocation change (7be1c1a3c7b1):
> 770100
> After preallocation change (28c5609fb236):
> 680000
> With liam's fix:
> 702100
> plus Peng's fix:
> 725900
Thank you for your test, now it seems that the performance
regression is not so much.
>
>
> Regards
> Yin, Fengwei
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Yin, Fengwei
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Peng
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c
>>> index 5ea211c3f186..e67bf2744384 100644
>>> --- a/lib/maple_tree.c
>>> +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c
>>> @@ -5575,9 +5575,11 @@ int mas_preallocate(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry, gfp_t gfp)
>>> goto ask_now;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - /* New root needs a singe node */
>>> - if (unlikely(mte_is_root(mas->node)))
>>> - goto ask_now;
>>> + if ((node_size == wr_mas.node_end + 1 &&
>>> + mas->offset == wr_mas.node_end) ||
>>> + (node_size == wr_mas.node_end &&
>>> + wr_mas.offset_end - mas->offset == 1))
>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> /* Potential spanning rebalance collapsing a node, use worst-case */
>>> if (node_size - 1 <= mt_min_slots[wr_mas.type])
>>> @@ -5590,7 +5592,6 @@ int mas_preallocate(struct ma_state *mas, void *entry, gfp_t gfp)
>>> if (likely(!mas_is_err(mas)))
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> - mas_set_alloc_req(mas, 0);
>>> ret = xa_err(mas->node);
>>> mas_reset(mas);
>>> mas_destroy(mas);
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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