[PATCH v3 00/20] Speculative page faults

[Laurent Dufour]

On 03/10/2017 03:27, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> 
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 28/09/2017 22:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200 Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
>>>>> workloads which are chosen to show performance benefits(!) but, alas,
>>>>> no quantitative testing results for workloads which we may suspect will
>>>>> be harmed by the changes(?).  Even things as simple as impact upon
>>>>> single-threaded pagefault-intensive workloads and its effect upon
>>>>> CONFIG_SMP=n .text size?
>>>>
>>>> I forgot to mention in my previous email the impact on the .text section.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the metrics I got :
>>>>
>>>> .text size	UP		SMP		Delta
>>>> 4.13-mmotm	8444201		8964137		6.16%
>>>> '' +spf		8452041		8971929		6.15%
>>>> 	Delta	0.09%		0.09%	
>>>>
>>>> No major impact as you could see.
>>>
>>> 8k text increase seems rather a lot actually.  That's a lot more
>>> userspace cacheclines that get evicted during a fault...
>>>
>>> Is the feature actually beneficial on uniprocessor?
>>
>> This is useless on uniprocessor, and I will disable it on x86 when !SMP 
>> by not defining __HAVE_ARCH_CALL_SPF.
>> So the speculative page fault handler will not be built but the vm 
>> sequence counter and the SCRU stuff will still be there. I may also make 
>> it disabled through macro when __HAVE_ARCH_CALL_SPF is not defined, but 
>> this may obfuscated the code a bit...
>>
>> On ppc64, as this feature requires book3s, it can't be built without SMP 
>> support.
> 
> Book3S doesn't force SMP, eg. PMAC is Book3S but can be built with SMP=n.
> 
> It's true that POWERNV and PSERIES both force SMP, and those are the
> platforms used on modern Book3S CPUs.

Thanks Michael,

I'll add a check on CONFIG_SMP on ppc too.

Laurent.