From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753381Ab1DULIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:08:48 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:42263 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751318Ab1DULIr (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:08:47 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:08:41 +0100 From: Mel Gorman To: Minchan Kim Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Andrea Arcangeli , raz ben yehuda , riel@redhat.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, lkml , linux-mm@kvack.org, stable@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault Message-ID: <20110421110841.GA612@suse.de> References: <20110415101248.GB22688@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 03:59:47PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > Hi Mel, > > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > With transparent hugepage support, handle_mm_fault() has to be careful > > that a normal PMD has been established before handling a PTE fault. To > > achieve this, it used __pte_alloc() directly instead of pte_alloc_map > > as pte_alloc_map is unsafe to run against a huge PMD. pte_offset_map() > > is called once it is known the PMD is safe. > > > > pte_alloc_map() is smart enough to check if a PTE is already present > > before calling __pte_alloc but this check was lost. As a consequence, > > PTEs may be allocated unnecessarily and the page table lock taken. > > Thi useless PTE does get cleaned up but it's a performance hit which > > is visible in page_test from aim9. > > > > This patch simply re-adds the check normally done by pte_alloc_map to > > check if the PTE needs to be allocated before taking the page table > > lock. The effect is noticable in page_test from aim9. > > > > AIM9 > >                2.6.38-vanilla 2.6.38-checkptenone > > creat-clo      446.10 ( 0.00%)   424.47 (-5.10%) > > page_test       38.10 ( 0.00%)    42.04 ( 9.37%) > > brk_test        52.45 ( 0.00%)    51.57 (-1.71%) > > exec_test      382.00 ( 0.00%)   456.90 (16.39%) > > fork_test       60.11 ( 0.00%)    67.79 (11.34%) > > MMTests Statistics: duration > > Total Elapsed Time (seconds)                611.90    612.22 > > > > (While this affects 2.6.38, it is a performance rather than a > > functional bug and normally outside the rules -stable. While the big > > performance differences are to a microbench, the difference in fork > > and exec performance may be significant enough that -stable wants to > > consider the patch) > > > > Reported-by: Raz Ben Yehuda > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman > > -- > >  mm/memory.c |    2 +- > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c > > index 5823698..1659574 100644 > > --- a/mm/memory.c > > +++ b/mm/memory.c > > @@ -3322,7 +3322,7 @@ int handle_mm_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma, > >         * run pte_offset_map on the pmd, if an huge pmd could > >         * materialize from under us from a different thread. > >         */ > > -       if (unlikely(__pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address))) > > +       if (unlikely(pmd_none(*pmd)) && __pte_alloc(mm, vma, pmd, address)) > >                return VM_FAULT_OOM; > >        /* if an huge pmd materialized from under us just retry later */ > >        if (unlikely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))) > > > > Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim > > Sorry for jumping in too late. I have a just nitpick. > Better late than never :) > We have another place, do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page. > Although it isn't workload of page_test, is it valuable to expand your > patch to cover it? > If there is workload there are many thread and share one shared anon > vma in ALWAYS THP mode, same problem would happen. We already checked pmd_none() in handle_mm_fault() before calling into do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(). We could race for the fault while attempting to allocate a huge page but it wouldn't be as severe a problem particularly as it is encountered after failing a 2M allocation. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs