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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DAD1C43334 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E35976B0072; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DE5216B0073; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:18:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CAE646B0074; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:18:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD4496B0072 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 07:18:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin15.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC1414037C for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:18:42 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79707230484.15.6B2CE88 Received: from mail-ed1-f47.google.com (mail-ed1-f47.google.com [209.85.208.47]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4211D4008E for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:18:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-f47.google.com with SMTP id y4so23319120edc.4 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 04:18:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SCL8okDV1rxEb5OCfF/iJQrOA6O3ijjSdt2qrtLkaoY=; b=HN0PHqtDTEFErT55MLznU/7DJVnNowu7VaLykhAMfAnLWk/VT8gi4qzgtp9RJcbF/o xOfjgYsWFeyQ24aNVQEst955WXhe8zBFER8rT59BUViD3iVFwkhtDVrovfrWMl32Ty7G IfhTsvQqiZxJpeCFF3n7PV77bWy6eo/eBTWQ8uhCaQE0Li7hApTkwmqB+0welO+95tS2 i7FBYJuKNtB+pIaYfppPtkOXE3ASK9lYlO6FrRrvflKOTDVaChFa3IpawV0QNs4c7EKZ otHf7eboGEVPuIYN7dagTcCnNVB2Zp2oJoMN+Tla5kEs2Lyrow5l0oXsFex3oKiLQhNm +7Pw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SCL8okDV1rxEb5OCfF/iJQrOA6O3ijjSdt2qrtLkaoY=; b=q0kCmsOacO7ePoADyOI0NXQK4ISTxoOXCD/5SUKZIe5x1UN1EbmHJ66bU+8NkZwo4n 4OvXWaCt2vsstivqr+yOPz6kkoRQavDna/OuqXm+U76z4kMIpgZI5OWmkc3VLFESSThy 7z07L+H2NWwuC2sOaSZtxAUH3xPLC577rHEKeIrZ3mh/7ZyaMfTiJMZO901rA4s7ZJEy H0dJR5hSUIiGfG9Ln7EBRkkCos+pm4aSDt2om+x1xfR4aYGgc7KWKsX39YfQY2JlTreg u4Bv0TnLdfNgdZp/qI3xtbh7HXG2bDCckjbO1JIDhcW/gkG4x2wvF9+S0iqCxS1zD0G4 CxOg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8uXZEr4iAYe6xX3xPt7Y8DTHbzpebabGRcJvTReXUuoFMRjaf4 jP46g20imWQu/NkBDj2u6Hr6+YL6xg7XuuS/BPc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1ss32678rw5+Nj7lJWknUm7P5YwIjqTzH08oVGiKCY3rvlOfMOyXALe2jVxcbqf5uWwnqbhiqF3URmzQ/t+nDw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:d53:b0:43b:a0cf:d970 with SMTP id ec19-20020a0564020d5300b0043ba0cfd970mr8335292edb.277.1658315920799; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 04:18:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220711034615.482895-1-21cnbao@gmail.com> <24f5e25b-3946-b92a-975b-c34688005398@linux.alibaba.com> <8e603deb-7023-5de5-c958-8911971aec24@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8e603deb-7023-5de5-c958-8911971aec24@huawei.com> From: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 23:18:29 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] mm: arm64: bring up BATCHED_UNMAP_TLB_FLUSH To: Yicong Yang , xhao@linux.alibaba.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LAK , x86 , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Linux Doc Mailing List , Jonathan Corbet , Arnd Bergmann , LKML , Darren Hart , huzhanyuan@oppo.com, =?UTF-8?B?5p2O5Z+56ZSLKHdpbmsp?= , =?UTF-8?B?5byg6K+X5piOKFNpbW9uIFpoYW5nKQ==?= , =?UTF-8?B?6YOt5YGl?= , real mz , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yicong Yang , "tiantao (H)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=HN0PHqtD; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of 21cnbao@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=21cnbao@gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1658315922; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=SCL8okDV1rxEb5OCfF/iJQrOA6O3ijjSdt2qrtLkaoY=; b=r9AW23Jfi5F+KwbY1XumUUPnJrbo83hIIjm1zJKWKh0PlcDSXfqlwSv/XwaeaxsVPlXo4F LUm8oAFuj8GKju0YO9biUXNhxNTigmjy4HpqUvtWJrlc5PNLj8Tz4srdHucyDLFsVJdUkG Y0GQYWqrTl4LsAaHbMEuBDj3UD2AjvI= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1658315922; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=xKNRepO3GlNvbPHiw+OGBNjrtRxGcgDOZDtVzb7yuRQmnI6MXaGKYFwwdg2SrVBc+cOcjP oEZU41wCQ7JiXpzj+isIPlU5SQo2Sj/u5Vk7Eue/R52PnXYFg6bzqOhz0EEIrSmnjVLkRA HUsogaBtdzOL+3XUjyTC9LsVJ1fck6M= X-Stat-Signature: 8mug7onmhgi1pbtci9pfne695qp1g1ia X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4211D4008E X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=HN0PHqtD; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of 21cnbao@gmail.com designates 209.85.208.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=21cnbao@gmail.com X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1658315922-491995 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 Tue, Jul 19, 2022 at 1:28 AM Yicong Yang wrote: > > On 2022/7/14 12:51, Barry Song wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 3:29 PM Xin Hao wrote: > >> > >> Hi barry. > >> > >> I do some test on Kunpeng arm64 machine use Unixbench. > >> > >> The test result as below. > >> > >> One core, we can see the performance improvement above +30%. > > > > I am really pleased to see the 30%+ improvement on unixbench on single core. > > > >> ./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1 > >> w/o > >> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 5481.0 1292.7 > >> ======== > >> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1292.7 > >> > >> w/ > >> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 6974.6 1645.0 > >> ======== > >> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 1645.0 > >> > >> > >> But with whole cores, there have little performance degradation above -5% > > > > That is sad as we might get more concurrency between mprotect(), madvise(), > > mremap(), zap_pte_range() and the deferred tlbi. > > > >> > >> ./Run -c 96 -i 1 shell1 > >> w/o > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 80765.5 lpm (60.0 s, 1 > >> samples) > >> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 80765.5 19048.5 > >> ======== > >> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 19048.5 > >> > >> w > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 76333.6 lpm (60.0 s, 1 > >> samples) > >> System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX > >> Shell Scripts (1 concurrent) 42.4 76333.6 18003.2 > >> ======== > >> System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 18003.2 > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> > >> After discuss with you, and do some changes in the patch. > >> > >> ndex a52381a680db..1ecba81f1277 100644 > >> --- a/mm/rmap.c > >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c > >> @@ -727,7 +727,11 @@ void flush_tlb_batched_pending(struct mm_struct *mm) > >> int flushed = batch >> TLB_FLUSH_BATCH_FLUSHED_SHIFT; > >> > >> if (pending != flushed) { > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_MM_CPUMASK > >> flush_tlb_mm(mm); > >> +#else > >> + dsb(ish); > >> +#endif > >> > > > > i was guessing the problem might be flush_tlb_batched_pending() > > so i asked you to change this to verify my guess. > > > > flush_tlb_batched_pending() looks like the critical path for this issue then the code > above can mitigate this. > > I cannot reproduce this on a 2P 128C Kunpeng920 server. The kernel is based on the > v5.19-rc6 and unixbench of version 5.1.3. The result of `./Run -c 128 -i 1 shell1` is: > iter-1 iter-2 iter-3 > w/o 17708.1 17637.1 17630.1 > w 17766.0 17752.3 17861.7 > > And flush_tlb_batched_pending()isn't the hot spot with the patch: > 7.00% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush > 4.17% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_set_access_flags > 2.43% multi.sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush > 1.98% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore > 1.69% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] next_uptodate_page > 1.66% sort [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_clear_flush > 1.56% multi.sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ptep_set_access_flags > 1.27% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] page_counter_cancel > 1.11% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] page_remove_rmap > 1.06% sh [kernel.kallsyms] [k] perf_event_alloc > > Hi Xin Hao, > > I'm not sure the test setup as well as the config is same with yours. (96C vs 128C > should not be the reason I think). Did you check that the 5% is a fluctuation or > not? It'll be helpful if more information provided for reproducing this issue. > > Thanks. I guess that is because "./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1" isn't an application stressed on memory. Hi Xin, in what kinds of configurations can we reproduce your test result? As I suppose tlbbatch will mainly affect the performance of user scenarios which require memory page-out/page-in like reclaiming file/anon pages. "./Run -c 1 -i 1 shell1" on a system with sufficient free memory won't be affected by tlbbatch at all, I believe. Thanks Barry