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=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 34AA1C0044D for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282722074A for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="QeISQDIo" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 282722074A Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=alum.mit.edu Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 86BC26B0005; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 81C666B0006; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 70AF36B0007; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0235.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.235]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572AE6B0005 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin19.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090EB824805A for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:51 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76584230142.19.crib46_702148d67ac31 X-HE-Tag: crib46_702148d67ac31 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5613 Received: from mail-qt1-f194.google.com (mail-qt1-f194.google.com [209.85.160.194]) by imf16.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 20:32:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt1-f194.google.com with SMTP id d22so2674026qtn.0 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:32:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=w1EPYYWs6HVF4jXQQJ+oocKs8ETWR2AXVndep1cXQyE=; b=QeISQDIoe7EIb0BquIvVIQDY2tWWGvFxd1AgSN87e3ljqPZ7kQB/I83xqIAXthJCtD M8nrFvW1nbg1mvE67QXFNqq+ymkmIVqyyQQPDGfNHS7/FvxHUWjKpsvroAfLVEvAhl0m MO7V5hvdqFhRKCVr0mUdgbDNj3pL7HyeExdQYva/Uy2G1ABuaHcs/nSD0WSkCWMToALe TA+z8CwLlbO23k0ZauRbPNqtO+lpvzUuYnaztQ/iovfp/3GcyLKDmut2Njk091o8aYH9 IXwMz8aZiiO5JfENs6Yl4M4AR9BuueUvArvGrTRwgiyyWVISgenMnobBPVcrT2f8DGkd GlRQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=w1EPYYWs6HVF4jXQQJ+oocKs8ETWR2AXVndep1cXQyE=; b=WdboFNHvnn0ZbXV94G5O73tbfwHTow0pOTUaWEEGeuf9BPhiRxGxwhAkrUi58SEh6T P3Dt594UOaLWln3J1QN7mGKzjyiVgseL8svPwNGeRhPXKABO3100Df8KUw3VsCNSsZPs Y6WeMnGROPjkH5IBxaqwtlO/iyrkrdmPPHwc9FmkkQe+lOfsqX9s9162K6YgQGt4Dc82 tZKt2nQShJ4zr4lIm9HgTPF7PsVKYSBW1FLkok2hK1V9WKQy/PQ52Fn1+Ol6rHkVQvsg lJPjJQJ1nNtAPfH++OIJO+9QLJqi2jk20WDgyh1c5VaXIzFxi00CkGdhSYcDHtQI7oFk yuyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3grhqqnZ9YuXORHSgO3du6x9ehSw2sg6TlIYxIatvZBeY2uCpx A3ouxfyXR5ioRitnZEWZFlw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvjR1yY+nJq0VMWjBuJNtaZyLQOtkI59T2HLkM0lKo7OgEdsnmtG0yx4yW5iP/QYTWAOqiVPQ== X-Received: by 2002:ac8:94a:: with SMTP id z10mr4439600qth.357.1583958769806; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rani.riverdale.lan ([2001:470:1f07:5f3::b55f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z19sm12793225qts.86.2020.03.11.13.32.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 11 Mar 2020 13:32:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Arvind Sankar X-Google-Original-From: Arvind Sankar Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 16:32:47 -0400 To: Arvind Sankar Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Cannon Matthews , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Michal Hocko , Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Greg Thelen , Salman Qazi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86 Message-ID: <20200311203246.GA3971914@rani.riverdale.lan> References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com> <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box> <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200309153831.GK1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20200309183704.GA1573@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200311005447.jkpsaghrpk3c4rwu@box> <20200311033552.GA3657254@rani.riverdale.lan> <20200311081607.3ahlk4msosj4qjsj@box> <20200311183240.GA3880414@rani.riverdale.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200311183240.GA3880414@rani.riverdale.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) 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 Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 02:32:41PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 11:16:07AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:35:54PM -0400, Arvind Sankar wrote: > > > > > > The rationale for MOVNTI instruction is supposed to be that it avoids > > > cache pollution. Aside from the bench that shows MOVNTI to be faster for > > > the move itself, shouldn't it have an additional benefit in not trashing > > > the CPU caches? > > > > > > As string instructions improve, why wouldn't the same improvements be > > > applied to MOVNTI? > > > > String instructions inherently more flexible. Implementation can choose > > caching strategy depending on the operation size (cx) and other factors. > > Like if operation is large enough and cache is full of dirty cache lines > > that expensive to free up, it can choose to bypass cache. MOVNTI is more > > strict on semantics and more opaque to CPU. > > But with today's processors, wouldn't writing 1G via the string > operations empty out almost the whole cache? Or are there already > optimizations to prevent one thread from hogging the L3? Also, currently the stringop is only done 4k at a time, so it would likely not trigger any future cache-bypassing optimizations in any case. > > If we do want to just use the string operations, it seems like the > clear_page routines should just call memset instead of duplicating it. > > > > > And more importantly string instructions, unlike MOVNTI, is something that > > generated often by compiler and used in standard libraries a lot. It is > > and will be focus of optimization of CPU architects. > > > > -- > > Kirill A. Shutemov