From: Vinay Banakar <vny@google.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel-team@meta.com, liuye <liuye@kylinos.cn>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/vmscan: batch TLB flush during memory reclaim
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 08:37:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALf+9Ye0zKcAQq2eKGkBPCxReaUJxaCar3K8PvvOUGnLOT2sAQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250403150055.94a38bc7e6e3f618fbc23ddd@linux-foundation.org>
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:00 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Were any runtime benefits observable?
I had replied as follows on another chain related to this patch:
Yes, the patch reduces IPIs by a factor of 512 by sending one IPI (for TLB
flush) per PMD rather than per page. Since shrink_folio_list()
usually operates on one PMD at a time, I believe we can safely batch
these operations here, but I would appreciate your feedback on this.
Here's a concrete example:
When swapping out 20 GiB (5.2M pages):
- Current: Each page triggers an IPI to all cores
- With 6 cores: 31.4M total interrupts (6 cores × 5.2M pages)
- With patch: One IPI per PMD (512 pages)
- Only 10.2K IPIs required (5.2M/512)
- With 6 cores: 61.4K total interrupts
- Results in ~99% reduction in total interrupts
Application performance impact varies by workload, but here's a
representative test case:
- Thread 1: Continuously accesses a 2 GiB private anonymous map (64B
chunks at random offsets)
- Thread 2: Pinned to different core, uses MADV_PAGEOUT on 20 GiB
private anonymous map to swap it out to SSD
- The threads only access their respective maps.
Results:
- Without patch: Thread 1 sees ~53% throughput reduction during
swap. If there are multiple worker threads (like thread 1), the
cumulative throughput degradation will be much higher
- With patch: Thread 1 maintains normal throughput
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 5:00 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:20:55 -0400 Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> > The current implementation in shrink_folio_list() performs a full TLB
> > flush for every individual folio reclaimed. This causes unnecessary
> > overhead during memory reclaim.
> >
> > The current code:
> > 1. Clears PTEs and unmaps each page individually
> > 2. Performs a full TLB flush on every CPU the mm is running on
> >
> > The new code:
> > 1. Clears PTEs and unmaps each page individually
> > 2. Adds each unmapped page to pageout_folios
> > 3. Flushes the TLB once before procesing pageout_folios
> >
> > This reduces the number of TLB flushes issued by the memory reclaim
> > code by 1/N, where N is the number of mapped folios encountered in
> > the batch processed by shrink_folio_list.
>
> Were any runtime benefits observable?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-04 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-28 18:20 Rik van Riel
2025-04-03 22:00 ` Andrew Morton
2025-04-03 22:31 ` Shakeel Butt
2025-04-04 13:30 ` Vinay Banakar
2025-04-04 13:37 ` Vinay Banakar [this message]
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=CALf+9Ye0zKcAQq2eKGkBPCxReaUJxaCar3K8PvvOUGnLOT2sAQ@mail.gmail.com \
--to=vny@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liuye@kylinos.cn \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=riel@surriel.com \
--cc=shakeel.butt@linux.dev \
--cc=yuzhao@google.com \
/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