From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v4 00/11] Perf improvements for hugetlb and vmalloc on arm64
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 09:18:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250422081822.1836315-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com> (raw)
Hi All,
This is v4 of a series to improve performance for hugetlb and vmalloc on arm64.
Although some of these patches are core-mm, advice from Andrew was to go via the
arm64 tree. All patches are now acked/reviewed by relevant maintainers so I
believe this should be good-to-go.
The 2 key performance improvements are 1) enabling the use of contpte-mapped
blocks in the vmalloc space when appropriate (which reduces TLB pressure). There
were already hooks for this (used by powerpc) but they required some tidying and
extending for arm64. And 2) batching up barriers when modifying the vmalloc
address space for upto 30% reduction in time taken in vmalloc().
vmalloc() performance was measured using the test_vmalloc.ko module. Tested on
Apple M2 and Ampere Altra. Each test had loop count set to 500000 and the whole
test was repeated 10 times.
legend:
- p: nr_pages (pages to allocate)
- h: use_huge (vmalloc() vs vmalloc_huge())
- (I): statistically significant improvement (95% CI does not overlap)
- (R): statistically significant regression (95% CI does not overlap)
- measurements are times; smaller is better
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
| Benchmark | | |
| Result Class | Apple M2 | Ampere Alta |
+==================================================+=============+=============+
| micromm/vmalloc | | |
| fix_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | (I) -11.53% | -2.57% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | 2.14% | 1.79% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:4, h:0 (usec) | (I) -9.93% | (I) -4.80% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:0 (usec) | (I) -25.07% | (I) -14.24% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:16, h:1 (usec) | (I) -14.07% | (R) 7.93% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:0 (usec) | (I) -29.43% | (I) -19.30% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:64, h:1 (usec) | (I) -16.39% | (R) 6.71% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:0 (usec) | (I) -31.46% | (I) -20.60% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:256, h:1 (usec) | (I) -16.58% | (R) 6.70% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:0 (usec) | (I) -31.96% | (I) -20.04% |
| fix_size_alloc_test: p:512, h:1 (usec) | 2.30% | 0.71% |
| full_fit_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | -2.94% | 1.77% |
| kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | -7.75% | 1.71% |
| kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | -9.07% | (R) 2.34% |
| long_busy_list_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | (I) -29.18% | (I) -17.91% |
| pcpu_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | -14.71% | -3.14% |
| random_size_align_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | (I) -11.08% | (I) -4.62% |
| random_size_alloc_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | (I) -30.25% | (I) -17.95% |
| vm_map_ram_test: p:1, h:0 (usec) | 5.06% | (R) 6.63% |
+--------------------------------------------------+-------------+-------------+
So there are some nice improvements but also some regressions to explain:
fix_size_alloc_test with h:1 and p:16,64,256 regress by ~6% on Altra. The
regression is actually introduced by enabling contpte-mapped 64K blocks in these
tests, and that regression is reduced (from about 8% if memory serves) by doing
the barrier batching. I don't have a definite conclusion on the root cause, but
I've ruled out the differences in the mapping paths in vmalloc. I strongly
believe this is likely due to the difference in the allocation path; 64K blocks
are not cached per-cpu so we have to go all the way to the buddy. I'm not sure
why this doesn't show up on M2 though. Regardless, I'm going to assert that it's
better to choose 16x reduction in TLB pressure vs 6% on the vmalloc allocation
call duration.
Changes since v3 [3]
====================
- Applied R-bs (thanks all!)
- Renamed set_ptes_anysz() -> __set_ptes_anysz() (Catalin)
- Renamed ptep_get_and_clear_anysz() -> __ptep_get_and_clear_anysz() (Catalin)
- Only set TIF_LAZY_MMU_PENDING if not already set to avoid atomic ops (Catalin)
- Fix commet typos (Anshuman)
- Fix build warnings when PMD is folded (buildbot)
- Reverse xmas tree for variables in __page_table_check_p[mu]ds_set() (Pasha)
Changes since v2 [2]
====================
- Removed the new arch_update_kernel_mappings_[begin|end]() API
- Switches to arch_[enter|leave]_lazy_mmu_mode() instead for barrier batching
- Removed clean up to avoid barriers for invalid or user mappings
Changes since v1 [1]
====================
- Split out the fixes into their own series
- Added Rbs from Anshuman - Thanks!
- Added patch to clean up the methods by which huge_pte size is determined
- Added "#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED" around PUD_SIZE in
flush_hugetlb_tlb_range()
- Renamed ___set_ptes() -> set_ptes_anysz()
- Renamed ___ptep_get_and_clear() -> ptep_get_and_clear_anysz()
- Fixed typos in commit logs
- Refactored pXd_valid_not_user() for better reuse
- Removed TIF_KMAP_UPDATE_PENDING after concluding that single flag is sufficent
- Concluded the extra isb() in __switch_to() is not required
- Only call arch_update_kernel_mappings_[begin|end]() for kernel mappings
Applies on top of v6.15-rc3. All mm selftests run and no regressions observed.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250205151003.88959-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250217140809.1702789-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250304150444.3788920-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com/
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan Roberts (11):
arm64: hugetlb: Cleanup huge_pte size discovery mechanisms
arm64: hugetlb: Refine tlb maintenance scope
mm/page_table_check: Batch-check pmds/puds just like ptes
arm64/mm: Refactor __set_ptes() and __ptep_get_and_clear()
arm64: hugetlb: Use __set_ptes_anysz() and
__ptep_get_and_clear_anysz()
arm64/mm: Hoist barriers out of set_ptes_anysz() loop
mm/vmalloc: Warn on improper use of vunmap_range()
mm/vmalloc: Gracefully unmap huge ptes
arm64/mm: Support huge pte-mapped pages in vmap
mm/vmalloc: Enter lazy mmu mode while manipulating vmalloc ptes
arm64/mm: Batch barriers when updating kernel mappings
arch/arm64/include/asm/hugetlb.h | 29 ++--
arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 209 +++++++++++++++++++--------
arch/arm64/include/asm/thread_info.h | 2 +
arch/arm64/include/asm/vmalloc.h | 45 ++++++
arch/arm64/kernel/process.c | 9 +-
arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 73 ++++------
include/linux/page_table_check.h | 30 ++--
include/linux/vmalloc.h | 8 +
mm/page_table_check.c | 34 +++--
mm/vmalloc.c | 40 ++++-
10 files changed, 329 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2025-04-22 8:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-22 8:18 Ryan Roberts [this message]
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 01/11] arm64: hugetlb: Cleanup huge_pte size discovery mechanisms Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 02/11] arm64: hugetlb: Refine tlb maintenance scope Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 03/11] mm/page_table_check: Batch-check pmds/puds just like ptes Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 04/11] arm64/mm: Refactor __set_ptes() and __ptep_get_and_clear() Ryan Roberts
2025-04-24 9:26 ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 05/11] arm64: hugetlb: Use __set_ptes_anysz() and __ptep_get_and_clear_anysz() Ryan Roberts
2025-04-24 9:40 ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 06/11] arm64/mm: Hoist barriers out of set_ptes_anysz() loop Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 07/11] mm/vmalloc: Warn on improper use of vunmap_range() Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 08/11] mm/vmalloc: Gracefully unmap huge ptes Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 09/11] arm64/mm: Support huge pte-mapped pages in vmap Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 10/11] mm/vmalloc: Enter lazy mmu mode while manipulating vmalloc ptes Ryan Roberts
2025-04-22 8:18 ` [PATCH v4 11/11] arm64/mm: Batch barriers when updating kernel mappings Ryan Roberts
2025-04-24 9:13 ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-23 19:18 ` [PATCH v4 00/11] Perf improvements for hugetlb and vmalloc on arm64 Luiz Capitulino
2025-05-08 14:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-05-09 13:55 ` Will Deacon
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=20250422081822.1836315-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alexghiti@rivosinc.com \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=kevin.brodsky@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--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