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
next prev parent 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®