mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
To: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] x86,pat Update the page flags for memtype atomically instead of using memtype_lock.
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:15:13 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1268439313.2793.148.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100311161700.GC5685@sgi.com>

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 08:17 -0800, Robin Holt wrote:
> While testing an application using the xpmem (out of kernel) driver, we
> noticed a significant page fault rate reduction of x86_64 with respect
> to ia64.  For one test running with 32 cpus, one thread per cpu, it
> took 01:08 for each of the threads to vm_insert_pfn 2GB worth of pages.
> For the same test running on 256 cpus, one thread per cpu, it took 14:48
> to vm_insert_pfn 2 GB worth of pages.
> 
> The slowdown was tracked to lookup_memtype which acquires the
> spinlock memtype_lock.  This heavily contended lock was slowing down
> vm_insert_pfn().
> 
> With the cmpxchg on page->flags method, both the 32 cpu and 256 cpu
> cases take approx 00:01.3 seconds to complete.
> 
> 
> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> To: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
> Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
> Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> 
> ---
> 
> Changes since -V1:
> 1) Introduce atomically setting and clearing the page flags and not
> using the global memtype_lock to protect page->flags.
> 
> 2) This allowed me the opportunity to convert the rwlock back into a
> spinlock and not affect _MY_ tests performance as all the pages my test
> was utilizing are tracked by struct pages.

Can you also include this spinlock to rwlock conversion, which can be
used for non RAM pages as a second patch?

Also, this patch doesn't apply to tip/master because of recent rbtree
changes in tip. Can you please send an updated patch?


> +#define _PGMT_DEFAULT		0
> +#define _PGMT_WC		PG_arch_1
> +#define _PGMT_UC_MINUS		PG_uncached
> +#define _PGMT_WB		(PG_uncached | PG_arch_1)
> +#define _PGMT_MASK		(~(PG_uncached | PG_arch_1))
> +
>  static inline unsigned long get_page_memtype(struct page *pg)
>  {
> -	if (!PageUncached(pg) && !PageWC(pg))
> +	unsigned long pg_flags = pg->flags & (PG_uncached | PG_arch_1);
> +
> +	if (pg_flags == _PGMT_DEFAULT)
>  		return -1;
> -	else if (!PageUncached(pg) && PageWC(pg))
> +	else if (pg_flags == _PGMT_WC)
>  		return _PAGE_CACHE_WC;
> -	else if (PageUncached(pg) && !PageWC(pg))
> +	else if (pg_flags == _PGMT_UC_MINUS)
>  		return _PAGE_CACHE_UC_MINUS;
>  	else
>  		return _PAGE_CACHE_WB;
> @@ -72,25 +76,26 @@ static inline unsigned long get_page_mem
>  
>  static inline void set_page_memtype(struct page *pg, unsigned long memtype)
>  {
> +	unsigned long memtype_flags = _PGMT_DEFAULT;
> +	unsigned long old_flags;
> +	unsigned long new_flags;
> +
>  	switch (memtype) {
>  	case _PAGE_CACHE_WC:
> -		ClearPageUncached(pg);
> -		SetPageWC(pg);
> +		memtype_flags = _PGMT_WC;
>  		break;
>  	case _PAGE_CACHE_UC_MINUS:
> -		SetPageUncached(pg);
> -		ClearPageWC(pg);
> +		memtype_flags = _PGMT_UC_MINUS;
>  		break;
>  	case _PAGE_CACHE_WB:
> -		SetPageUncached(pg);
> -		SetPageWC(pg);
> -		break;
> -	default:
> -	case -1:
> -		ClearPageUncached(pg);
> -		ClearPageWC(pg);
> +		memtype_flags = _PGMT_WB;

For WB case it should be _PGMT_WB and for the case of "-1" this should
be _PGMT_DEFAULT, as in the case of free page we mark it _PGMT_DEFAULT
and when there is an explicit request to mark it WB, then we mark it
_PGMT_WB

Other than that it looks good to me.

thanks,
suresh
 	


  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-13  0:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-03-11 16:17 Robin Holt
2010-03-13  0:15 ` Suresh Siddha [this message]
2010-03-13  1:08   ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-03-13  1:46     ` Suresh Siddha
2010-03-13  1:52       ` Thomas Gleixner
2010-03-13  2:05         ` Suresh Siddha
2010-03-15 21:11   ` Robin Holt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1268439313.2793.148.camel@sbs-t61.sc.intel.com \
    --to=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    --cc=holt@sgi.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=venkatesh.pallipadi@gmail.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®