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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B54DFC18E7A for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84FE920674 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:06:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 84FE920674 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2B3B16B0003; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:06:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 262436B0006; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:06:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 19FA26B0007; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:06:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0126.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.126]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EF06B0003 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 05:06:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0ACC181AC9BF for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:06:33 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76575243066.19.sail07_7378eddfe863f X-HE-Tag: sail07_7378eddfe863f X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5391 Received: from mail-wr1-f67.google.com (mail-wr1-f67.google.com [209.85.221.67]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:06:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wr1-f67.google.com with SMTP id t11so9990803wrw.5 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 02:06:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=advhTaiPpBd3xMDHQ5EkNV5OtDpYm/5MCYtszs2MKcE=; b=rPwGdjPyM84Xn2KJgRYiytv8bHES/gxvD2bgNdjQzdN6x//1Kf1BFYztr+h1xXHajw gBnvdJfQ1gQqbSiSnkJw4VVBKBQV0SDJw4SDjyWpfSCJRXKsfwjMUIgCMPsYOTdt1++f ymiCEI2jDfY2yMOGacV9agnwRihjLq28MHgjKCl1541xiYqQiwUT1xsBsQAYtuyuHlKX z42XxOojWbDKxYnfR1qOtirLg+ZDU644YGvQn9cKYSPDW3vSTaYXAWmZTJg406r7ScOI 655U5l2WA4cKsBGMqMMK3EEjgyBnIFmXjOknTiGNoK3PANeOEIsvnnHzl/sDMOu22Lo/ CzWA== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1JnuFrU1Lq3LhCLncrxgOzZARa/2UV0ckZZ//1+vvm28/mv5qV dc2uiFPyUL6UZg1abnza0Mg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuwHtxz+a1BYeGUzK3Wpd1FIviWQ7fbUSfjosvB/Cg4HKU8TP5LGAhdAO8Dnz5SL4yn5zBdKg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e911:: with SMTP id f17mr19002170wrm.87.1583744792202; Mon, 09 Mar 2020 02:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (prg-ext-pat.suse.com. [213.151.95.130]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q72sm6102065wme.31.2020.03.09.02.06.30 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Mar 2020 02:06:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 10:06:30 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Cannon Matthews , Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , David Rientjes , Greg Thelen , Salman Qazi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86 Message-ID: <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com> <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon 09-03-20 03:08:20, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 05:03:53PM -0800, Cannon Matthews wrote: > > Reimplement clear_gigantic_page() to clear gigabytes pages using the > > non-temporal streaming store instructions that bypass the cache > > (movnti), since an entire 1GiB region will not fit in the cache anyway. > > > > Doing an mlock() on a 512GiB 1G-hugetlb region previously would take on > > average 134 seconds, about 260ms/GiB which is quite slow. Using `movnti` > > and optimizing the control flow over the constituent small pages, this > > can be improved roughly by a factor of 3-4x, with the 512GiB mlock() > > taking only 34 seconds on average, or 67ms/GiB. > > > > The assembly code for the __clear_page_nt routine is more or less > > taken directly from the output of gcc with -O3 for this function with > > some tweaks to support arbitrary sizes and moving memory barriers: > > > > void clear_page_nt_64i (void *page) > > { > > for (int i = 0; i < GiB /sizeof(long long int); ++i) > > { > > _mm_stream_si64 (((long long int*)page) + i, 0); > > } > > sfence(); > > } > > > > Tested: > > Time to `mlock()` a 512GiB region on broadwell CPU > > AVG time (s) % imp. ms/page > > clear_page_erms 133.584 - 261 > > clear_page_nt 34.154 74.43% 67 > > Some macrobenchmark would be great too. > > > An earlier version of this code was sent as an RFC patch ~July 2018 > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10543193/ but never merged. > > Andi and I tried to use MOVNTI for large/gigantic page clearing back in > 2012[1]. Maybe it can be useful. > > That patchset is somewhat more complex trying to keep the memory around > the fault address hot in cache. In theory it should help to reduce latency > on the first access to the memory. > > I was not able to get convincing numbers back then for the hardware of the > time. Maybe it's better now. > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/1345470757-12005-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Thanks for the reminder. I've had only a very vague recollection. Your series had a much wider scope indeed. Since then we have gained process_huge_page which tries to optimize normal huge pages. Gigantic huge pages are a bit different. They are much less dynamic from the usage POV in my experience. Micro-optimizations for the first access tends to not matter at all as it is usually pre-allocation scenario. On the other hand, speeding up the initialization sounds like a good thing in general. It will be a single time benefit but if the additional code is not hard to maintain then I would be inclined to take it even with "artificial" numbers state above. There really shouldn't be other downsides except for the code maintenance, right? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs