From: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
ak@linux.intel.com, riel@redhat.com, alex.shi@linaro.org,
dave.hansen@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 09:58:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <535942A3.3020800@sr71.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140424084552.GQ23991@suse.de>
On 04/24/2014 01:45 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * See Documentation/x86/tlb.txt for details. We choose 33
>> + * because it is large enough to cover the vast majority (at
>> + * least 95%) of allocations, and is small enough that we are
>> + * confident it will not cause too much overhead. Each single
>> + * flush is about 100 cycles, so this caps the maximum overhead
>> + * at _about_ 3,000 cycles.
>> + */
>> +/* in units of pages */
>> +unsigned long tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling = 1;
>> +
>
> This comment is premature. The documentation file does not exist yet and
> 33 means nothing yet. Out of curiousity though, how confident are you
> that a TLB flush is generally 100 cycles across different generations
> and manufacturers of CPUs? I'm not suggesting you change it or auto-tune
> it, am just curious.
Yeah, the comment belongs in the later patch where I set it to 33.
I looked at this on the last few generations of Intel CPUs. "100
cycles" was a very general statement, and not precise at all. My laptop
averages out to 113 cycles overall, but the flushes of 25 pages averaged
96 cycles/page while the flushes of 2 averaged 219/page.
Those cycles include some costs of from the instrumentation as well.
I did not test on other CPU manufacturers, but this should be pretty
easy to reproduce. I'm happy to help folks re-run it on other hardware.
I also believe with the modalias stuff we've got in sysfs for the CPU
objects we can do this in the future with udev rules instead of
hard-coding it in the kernel.
>> - /* In modern CPU, last level tlb used for both data/ins */
>> - if (vmflag & VM_EXEC)
>> - tlb_entries = tlb_lli_4k[ENTRIES];
>> - else
>> - tlb_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
>> -
>> - /* Assume all of TLB entries was occupied by this task */
>> - act_entries = tlb_entries >> tlb_flushall_shift;
>> - act_entries = mm->total_vm > act_entries ? act_entries : mm->total_vm;
>> - nr_base_pages = (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> -
>> - /* tlb_flushall_shift is on balance point, details in commit log */
>> - if (nr_base_pages > act_entries) {
>> + if ((end - start) > tlb_single_page_flush_ceiling * PAGE_SIZE) {
>> count_vm_tlb_event(NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL);
>> local_flush_tlb();
>> } else {
>
> We lose the different tuning based on whether the flush is for instructions
> or data. However, I cannot think of a good reason for keeping it as I
> expect that flushes of instructions is relatively rare. The benefit, if
> any, will be marginal. Still, if you do another revision it would be
> nice to call this out in the changelog.
Will do.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-24 16:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-21 18:24 [PATCH 0/6] x86: rework tlb range flushing code Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 1/6] x86: mm: clean up tlb " Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:53 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 8:33 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 2/6] x86: mm: rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 16:54 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 8:45 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 16:58 ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2014-04-24 18:00 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-25 21:39 ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 3/6] x86: mm: fix missed global TLB flush stat Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 17:15 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 8:49 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 4/6] x86: mm: trace tlb flushes Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:19 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:14 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 20:42 ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 5/6] x86: mm: new tunable for single vs full TLB flush Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:31 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:37 ` Mel Gorman
2014-04-24 17:25 ` Dave Hansen
2014-04-24 17:53 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 22:03 ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-07 17:43 ` Dave Hansen
2014-07-08 0:43 ` Alex Shi
2014-04-21 18:24 ` [PATCH 6/6] x86: mm: set TLB flush tunable to sane value (33) Dave Hansen
2014-04-22 21:33 ` Rik van Riel
2014-04-24 10:46 ` Mel Gorman
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=535942A3.3020800@sr71.net \
--to=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.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