[PATCH V4 0/2] mm: FAULT_AROUND_ORDER patchset performance data for powerpc
hughd at google.com
Tue May 20 09:23:07 EST 2014
On Mon, 19 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> On Monday 19 May 2014 05:42 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > Hugh Dickins <hughd at google.com> writes:
> >> On Thu, 15 May 2014, Madhavan Srinivasan wrote:
> >>> Hi Ingo,
> >>> Do you have any comments for the latest version of the patchset. If
> >>> not, kindly can you pick it up as is.
> >>> With regards
> >>> Maddy
> >>>> Kirill A. Shutemov with 8c6e50b029 commit introduced
> >>>> vm_ops->map_pages() for mapping easy accessible pages around
> >>>> fault address in hope to reduce number of minor page faults.
> >>>> This patch creates infrastructure to modify the FAULT_AROUND_ORDER
> >>>> value using mm/Kconfig. This will enable architecture maintainers
> >>>> to decide on suitable FAULT_AROUND_ORDER value based on
> >>>> performance data for that architecture. First patch also defaults
> >>>> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Kconfig element to 4. Second patch list
> >>>> out the performance numbers for powerpc (platform pseries) and
> >>>> initialize the fault around order variable for pseries platform of
> >>>> powerpc.
> >> Sorry for not commenting earlier - just reminded by this ping to Ingo.
> >> I didn't study your numbers, but nowhere did I see what PAGE_SIZE you use.
> >> arch/powerpc/Kconfig suggests that Power supports base page size of
> >> 4k, 16k, 64k or 256k.
> >> I would expect your optimal fault_around_order to depend very much on
> >> the base page size.
> > It was 64k, which is what PPC64 uses on all the major distributions.
> > You really only get a choice of 4k and 64k with 64 bit power.
> This is true. PPC64 support multiple pagesize and yes the default page
> size of 64k, is taken as base pagesize for the tests.
> >> Perhaps fault_around_size would provide a more useful default?
> > That seems to fit. With 4k pages and order 4, you're asking for 64k.
> > Maddy's result shows 64k is also reasonable for 64k pages.
> > Perhaps we try to generalize from two data points (a slight improvement
> > over doing it from 1!), eg:
> > /* 4 seems good for 4k-page x86, 0 seems good for 64k page ppc64, so: */
> > unsigned int fault_around_order __read_mostly =
> > (16 - PAGE_SHIFT < 0 ? 0 : 16 - PAGE_SHIFT);
Rusty's bimodal answer doesn't seem the right starting point to me.
Shouldn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER and fault_around_order be changed to be
the order of the fault-around size in bytes, and fault_around_pages()
use 1UL << (fault_around_order - PAGE_SHIFT)
- when that doesn't wrap, of course!
That would at least have a better chance of being appropriate for
architectures with 8k and 16k pages (Itanium springs to mind).
Not necessarily right for them, since each architecture may have
different faulting overheads; but a better chance of being right
than blindly assuming 4k or 64k pages for everyone.
I'd be glad to see that change go into v3.15: what do you think,
Kirill, are we too late to make such a change now?
Or do you see some objection to it?
> This may be right. But these are the concerns, will not this make other
> arch to pick default without any tuning
Wasn't FAULT_AROUND_ORDER 4 chosen solely on the basis of x86 4k pages?
Did other architectures, with other page sizes, back that default?
Clearly not powerpc.
> and also this will remove the
> compile time option to disable the feature?
Compile time option meaning your FAULT_AROUND_ORDER in mm/Kconfig
I'm not sure whether Rusty was arguing against that or not. I think
we are all three concerned to have a more sensible default than what's
there at present. I don't feel very strongly about your Kconfig
option: I've no objection, if it were to default to byte order 16.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev