| 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: <20210323162949.GM3697@techsingularity.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 16:29:49 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Net <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux-NFS <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3 v5] Introduce a bulk order-0 page allocator
On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 04:08:14PM +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 10:44:21 +0000
> Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 09:18:42AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > This series is based on top of Matthew Wilcox's series "Rationalise
> > > __alloc_pages wrapper" and does not apply to 5.12-rc2. If you want to
> > > test and are not using Andrew's tree as a baseline, I suggest using the
> > > following git tree
> > >
> > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux.git mm-bulk-rebase-v5r9
> > >
> >
> > Jesper and Chuck, would you mind rebasing on top of the following branch
> > please?
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mel/linux.git mm-bulk-rebase-v6r2
> >
> > The interface is the same so the rebase should be trivial.
> >
> > Jesper, I'm hoping you see no differences in performance but it's best
> > to check.
>
> I will rebase and check again.
>
> The current performance tests that I'm running, I observe that the
> compiler layout the code in unfortunate ways, which cause I-cache
> performance issues. I wonder if you could integrate below patch with
> your patchset? (just squash it)
>
Yes but I'll keep it as a separate patch that is modified slightly.
Otherwise it might get "fixed" as likely/unlikely has been used
inappropriately in the past. If there is pushback, I'll squash them
together.
> From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
>
> Looking at perf-report and ASM-code for __alloc_pages_bulk() then the code
> activated is suboptimal. The compiler guess wrong and place unlikely code in
> the beginning. Due to the use of WARN_ON_ONCE() macro the UD2 asm
> instruction is added to the code, which confuse the I-cache prefetcher in
> the CPU
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index f60f51a97a7b..88a5c1ce5b87 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -5003,10 +5003,10 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
> unsigned int alloc_flags;
> int nr_populated = 0, prep_index = 0;
>
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_pages <= 0))
> + if (unlikely(nr_pages <= 0))
> return 0;
>
Ok, I can make this change. It was a defensive check for the new callers
in case insane values were being passed in.
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_list && !list_empty(page_list)))
> + if (unlikely(page_list && !list_empty(page_list)))
> return 0;
>
> /* Skip populated array elements. */
FWIW, this check is now gone. The list only had to be empty if
prep_new_page was deferred until IRQs were enabled to avoid accidentally
calling prep_new_page() on a page that was already on the list when
alloc_pages_bulk was called.
> @@ -5018,7 +5018,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
> prep_index = nr_populated;
> }
>
> - if (nr_pages == 1)
> + if (unlikely(nr_pages == 1))
> goto failed;
>
> /* May set ALLOC_NOFRAGMENT, fragmentation will return 1 page. */
I'm dropping this because nr_pages == 1 is common for the sunrpc user.
> @@ -5054,7 +5054,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
> * If there are no allowed local zones that meets the watermarks then
> * try to allocate a single page and reclaim if necessary.
> */
> - if (!zone)
> + if (unlikely(!zone))
> goto failed;
>
> /* Attempt the batch allocation */
Ok.
> @@ -5075,7 +5075,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
>
> page = __rmqueue_pcplist(zone, ac.migratetype, alloc_flags,
> pcp, pcp_list);
> - if (!page) {
> + if (unlikely(!page)) {
> /* Try and get at least one page */
> if (!nr_populated)
> goto failed_irq;
Hmmm, ok. It depends on memory pressure but I agree !page is unlikely.
Current version applied is
--8<--
mm/page_alloc: optimize code layout for __alloc_pages_bulk
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Looking at perf-report and ASM-code for __alloc_pages_bulk() it is clear
that the code activated is suboptimal. The compiler guesses wrong and
places unlikely code at the beginning. Due to the use of WARN_ON_ONCE()
macro the UD2 asm instruction is added to the code, which confuse the
I-cache prefetcher in the CPU.
[mgorman: Minor changes and rebasing]
Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index be1e33a4df39..1ec18121268b 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -5001,7 +5001,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
unsigned int alloc_flags;
int nr_populated = 0;
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(nr_pages <= 0))
+ if (unlikely(nr_pages <= 0))
return 0;
/*
@@ -5048,7 +5048,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
* If there are no allowed local zones that meets the watermarks then
* try to allocate a single page and reclaim if necessary.
*/
- if (!zone)
+ if (unlikely(!zone))
goto failed;
/* Attempt the batch allocation */
@@ -5066,7 +5066,7 @@ int __alloc_pages_bulk(gfp_t gfp, int preferred_nid,
page = __rmqueue_pcplist(zone, ac.migratetype, alloc_flags,
pcp, pcp_list);
- if (!page) {
+ if (unlikely(!page)) {
/* Try and get at least one page */
if (!nr_populated)
goto failed_irq;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists