linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
	Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [patch] mm, vmacache: hash addresses based on pmd
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 16:43:54 -0700 (PDT)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1807111637050.254865@chino.kir.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180711161030.b5ae2f5b1210150c13b1a832@linux-foundation.org>

On Wed, 11 Jul 2018, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > > Did you consider LRU-sorting the array instead?
> > > 
> > 
> > It adds 40 bytes to struct task_struct,
> 
> What does?  LRU sort?  It's a 4-entry array, just do it in place, like
> bh_lru_install(). Confused.
> 

I was imagining an optimized sort rather than adding an iteration to 
vmacache_update() of the same form that causes vmacache_find() to show up 
on my perf reports in the first place.

> > but I'm not sure the least 
> > recently used is the first preferred check.  If I do 
> > madvise(MADV_DONTNEED) from a malloc implementation where I don't control 
> > what is free()'d and I'm constantly freeing back to the same hugepages, 
> > for example, I may always get first slot cache hits with this patch as 
> > opposed to the 25% chance that the current implementation has (and perhaps 
> > an lru would as well).
> > 
> > I'm sure that I could construct a workload where LRU would be better and 
> > could show that the added footprint were worthwhile, but I could also 
> > construct a workload where the current implementation based on pfn would 
> > outperform all of these.  It simply turns out that on the user-controlled 
> > workloads that I was profiling that hashing based on pmd was the win.
> 
> That leaves us nowhere to go.  Zapping the WARN_ON seems a no-brainer
> though?
> 

I would suggest it goes under CONFIG_DEBUG_VM_VMACACHE.

My implementation for the optimized vmacache_find() is based on the 
premise that spatial locality matters, and in practice on random 
user-controlled workloads this yields a faster lookup than the current 
implementation.  Of course, any caching technique can be defeated by 
workloads, artifical or otherwise, but I suggest that as a general 
principle caching based on PMD_SHIFT rather than pfn has a greater 
likelihood of avoiding the iteration in vmacache_find() because of spatial 
locality for anything that iterates over a range of memory.

      reply	other threads:[~2018-07-11 23:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-10  0:50 David Rientjes
2018-07-10  1:08 ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-10  1:37   ` David Rientjes
2018-07-11 23:10     ` Andrew Morton
2018-07-11 23:43       ` David Rientjes [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=alpine.DEB.2.21.1807111637050.254865@chino.kir.corp.google.com \
    --to=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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