From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86,mm: only trim the mm_cpumask once a second
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:46:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4360210d-0656-4328-ab67-240465ab2f9c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cc6d6e0be9b4fb61228f42ad82a057f60a1c1e12.camel@surriel.com>
On 12/3/24 12:07, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The tlb_flush2 threaded test does not only madvise in a
> loop, but also mmap and munmap from inside every thread.
>
> This should create massive contention on the mmap_lock,
> resulting in threads going to sleep while waiting in
> mmap and munmap.
>
> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/tlb_flush2.c
Oh, wow, it only madvise()'s a 1MB allocation before doing the
munmap()/mmap(). I somehow remembered it being a lot larger. And, yeah,
I see a ton of idle time which would be 100% explained by mmap_lock
contention.
Did the original workload that you care about have idle time?
I'm wondering if trimming mm_cpumask() on the way to idle but leaving it
alone on a context switch to another thread is a good idea.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-12-04 0:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-28 14:57 [tip:x86/mm] [x86/mm/tlb] 209954cbc7: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops 13.2% regression kernel test robot
2024-11-28 16:21 ` Peter Zijlstra
2024-11-29 1:44 ` Oliver Sang
2024-11-28 19:46 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-11-29 2:52 ` Rik van Riel
2024-12-02 16:30 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-02 18:10 ` Rik van Riel
2024-12-02 16:50 ` Dave Hansen
2024-12-03 0:43 ` [PATCH] x86,mm: only trim the mm_cpumask once a second Rik van Riel
2024-12-04 13:15 ` Oliver Sang
2024-12-04 16:07 ` Rik van Riel
2024-12-04 16:56 ` [PATCH v3] " Rik van Riel
2024-12-04 20:19 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-05 2:03 ` [PATCH v4] " Rik van Riel
2024-12-06 1:30 ` Oliver Sang
2024-12-06 9:40 ` [tip: x86/mm] x86/mm/tlb: Only " tip-bot2 for Rik van Riel
2024-12-03 1:22 ` [PATCH -tip] x86,mm: only " Rik van Riel
2024-12-03 14:57 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
2024-12-03 19:48 ` [PATCH v2] " Rik van Riel
2024-12-03 20:05 ` Dave Hansen
2024-12-03 20:07 ` Rik van Riel
2024-12-04 0:46 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2024-12-04 1:43 ` Rik van Riel
2024-12-03 23:27 ` Mathieu Desnoyers
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=4360210d-0656-4328-ab67-240465ab2f9c@intel.com \
--to=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--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®