From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A10CD2E9E3 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CD6976B007B; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C86336B0083; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:25:43 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B74D46B0085; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:25:43 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9948E6B007B for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 07:25:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A256161872 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:25:43 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82773733812.25.3D8BEF1 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf28.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E02C0011 for ; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1731327854; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=JYAmY7wTk54E05W8q1gkfsk30KbVYXQmEUb8Up6+Vf0=; b=XiIZvVkmC/c9Q5oMr5v5Ph5m+m+Pg69lOzjjMu78wDbzdyJwJ44AqNo7VqglEr2vJnUULM 3sFtcO6mfAlgN+a2UjgnuM5x14n5OVhbDJ6+HjT5qpkIZMk7W8VowMtSaPhw5sM3nClI92 PjcShvyQgM6qon+6pD9hZHPewTTSn98= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1731327854; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dEUqrH6SxOVzDWVQG6nQ2QIGzCo0q9TKQ0CjIsICCtFQCZz1s5HWvqzUjOAX8dghEF1gdH /xlkxJdHd/pB6+PXB8F9dPUleCaPWACJAjgWnE/W2hkW1QBdPW+cYFZ9ddLKWAlYfF30h6 2Ox6iln/4o+GaLUjweMf1oV8ddEaHhI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf28.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf28.hostedemail.com: domain of ryan.roberts@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ryan.roberts@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6421F37; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 04:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.89.175] (unknown [10.57.89.175]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8D87D3F6A8; Mon, 11 Nov 2024 04:25:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <046ce0ae-b4d5-4dbd-ad9d-eb8de1bba1b8@arm.com> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:25:35 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/57] Boot-time page size selection for arm64 Content-Language: en-GB To: Petr Tesarik Cc: Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Ard Biesheuvel , Catalin Marinas , David Hildenbrand , Greg Marsden , Ivan Ivanov , Kalesh Singh , Marc Zyngier , Mark Rutland , Matthias Brugger , Miroslav Benes , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <20241014105514.3206191-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <20241017142752.17f2c816@mordecai.tesarici.cz> <20241111131442.51738a30@mordecai.tesarici.cz> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: <20241111131442.51738a30@mordecai.tesarici.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam10 X-Stat-Signature: rjr5q5m1bx3uus9kbmdbq1h5f4afztum X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: F2E02C0011 X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1731327899-93879 X-HE-Meta: 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 8vyrDXvN AODlaFzjHcEb4TwjZAx9kdAN1shtF+NTupr1roEQoi+oBBpea8FrbOVH+5TVH9CpyQiMhGjSUCb9sku96xpbHSc1Eao+Icbwwep5HVTsgqex14673y03ejHsiYAOO+N0hJH+iZWaKDzgJoitL9Uel7vhO8Ux0YIh3I25zY+bYaCS0Kps9KHJUgsfBuj//xk5PdeloqGXYQYiGg0c= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000001, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi Petr, On 11/11/2024 12:14, Petr Tesarik wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:32:43 +0100 > Ryan Roberts wrote: > >> [...] >> I understand that Suse might be able to help with wider performance testing > > Sorry for the delay (vacation, other tasks). Anyway, let me share some > results with you. Not at all; thanks for coming back with these results! > > First, I have looked only at 4k pages (constant v. selected at boot > time) so far. > > Second, the impact of the patch series is much smaller than I expected. > Most macro-benchmarks (dbench, io-bench) did not see any significant > slowdown. There appears to be a performance hit of approx. 1-2%, but > that's within noise, and I can't dedicate my time to running extensive > tests to find the distribution peak and compare. In short, I suspect a > slight performance hit, but I cannot quantify it. > > Third, a few micro-benchmarks saw a significant regression. > > Most notably, getenv and getenvT2 tests from libMicro were 18% and 20% > slower with variable page size. I don't know why, but I'm looking into > it. The system() library call was also about 18% slower, but that might > be related. OK, ouch. I think there are some things we can try to optimize the implementation further. But I'll wait for your analysis before digging myself. You probably also saw the conversation with Catalin about the cost vs benefit of this series. Performance regressions will all need to be considered in the cost column, of course. So understanding the root cause and trying to reduce the regression as much as possible will increase chances of getting it accepted upstream. Thanks, Ryan > > The dup() syscall was up to 5% slower (depends on underlying filesystem > type). > > VMA unmap was slower for some sizes, but the pattern seemed random, > sometimes giving even better performance with variable page size, so > this micro-benchmark may be too unstable to draw any conclusions. > > Stay tuned > Petr T