From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com,
ryan.roberts@arm.com, anshuman.khandual@arm.com,
baohua@kernel.org, hughd@google.com, ioworker0@gmail.com,
wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com,
gshan@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Compute mTHP order efficiently
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 09:25:27 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <091f517d-e7dc-4c10-b1ac-39658f31f0ed@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZugxqJ-CjEi5lEW_@casper.infradead.org>
On 9/16/24 18:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 02:49:02PM +0530, Dev Jain wrote:
>> We use pte_range_none() to determine whether contiguous PTEs are empty
>> for an mTHP allocation. Instead of iterating the while loop for every
>> order, use some information, which is the first set PTE found, from the
>> previous iteration, to eliminate some cases. The key to understanding
>> the correctness of the patch is that the ranges we want to examine
>> form a strictly decreasing sequence of nested intervals.
> This is a lot more complicated. Do you have any numbers that indicate
> that it's faster? Yes, it's fewer memory references, but you've gone
> from a simple linear scan that's easy to prefetch to an exponential scan
> that might confuse the prefetchers.
I do have some numbers, I tested with a simple program, and also used
ktime API, with the latter, enclosing from "order = highest_order(orders)"
till "pte_unmap(pte)" (enclosing the entire while loop), a rough average
estimate is that without the patch, it takes 1700 ns to execute, with the
patch, on an average it takes 80 - 100ns less. I cannot think of a good
testing program...
For the prefetching thingy, I am still doing a linear scan, and in each
iteration, with the patch, the range I am scanning is going to strictly
lie inside the range I would have scanned without the patch. Won't the
compiler and the CPU still do prefetching, but on a smaller range; where
does the prefetcher get confused? I confess, I do not understand this
very well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-17 3:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-13 9:19 Dev Jain
2024-09-16 5:12 ` Barry Song
2024-09-16 5:20 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-16 5:58 ` Barry Song
2024-09-16 13:24 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-09-17 3:35 ` Lance Yang
2024-09-17 5:35 ` Barry Song
2024-09-17 3:55 ` Dev Jain [this message]
2024-09-17 8:29 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-17 8:44 ` Barry Song
2024-09-17 8:54 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-17 9:09 ` Barry Song
2024-09-17 10:19 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-17 10:12 ` David Hildenbrand
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=091f517d-e7dc-4c10-b1ac-39658f31f0ed@arm.com \
--to=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.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