From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
<catalin.marinas@arm.com>, <will@kernel.org>
Cc: <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <v-songbaohua@oppo.com>,
<yuzhao@google.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: drop tlb flush operation when clearing the access bit
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 21:48:42 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e0b65883-18fa-40c8-a61a-bebcfee109a4@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae3115778a3fa10ec77152e18beed54fafe0f6e7.1698151516.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
On 2023/10/24 20:56, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Now ptep_clear_flush_young() is only called by folio_referenced() to
> check if the folio was referenced, and now it will call a tlb flush on
> ARM64 architecture. However the tlb flush can be expensive on ARM64
> servers, especially for the systems with a large CPU numbers.
>
> Similar to the x86 architecture, below comments also apply equally to
> ARM64 architecture. So we can drop the tlb flush operation in
> ptep_clear_flush_young() on ARM64 architecture to improve the performance.
> "
> /* Clearing the accessed bit without a TLB flush
> * doesn't cause data corruption. [ It could cause incorrect
> * page aging and the (mistaken) reclaim of hot pages, but the
> * chance of that should be relatively low. ]
> *
> * So as a performance optimization don't flush the TLB when
> * clearing the accessed bit, it will eventually be flushed by
> * a context switch or a VM operation anyway. [ In the rare
> * event of it not getting flushed for a long time the delay
> * shouldn't really matter because there's no real memory
> * pressure for swapout to react to. ]
> */
> "
> Running the thpscale to show some obvious improvements for compaction
> latency with this patch:
> base patched
> Amean fault-both-1 1093.19 ( 0.00%) 1084.57 * 0.79%*
> Amean fault-both-3 2566.22 ( 0.00%) 2228.45 * 13.16%*
> Amean fault-both-5 3591.22 ( 0.00%) 3146.73 * 12.38%*
> Amean fault-both-7 4157.26 ( 0.00%) 4113.67 * 1.05%*
> Amean fault-both-12 6184.79 ( 0.00%) 5218.70 * 15.62%*
> Amean fault-both-18 9103.70 ( 0.00%) 7739.71 * 14.98%*
> Amean fault-both-24 12341.73 ( 0.00%) 10684.23 * 13.43%*
> Amean fault-both-30 15519.00 ( 0.00%) 13695.14 * 11.75%*
> Amean fault-both-32 16189.15 ( 0.00%) 14365.73 * 11.26%*
> base patched
> Duration User 167.78 161.03
> Duration System 1836.66 1673.01
> Duration Elapsed 2074.58 2059.75
>
> Barry Song submitted a similar patch [1] before, that replaces the
> ptep_clear_flush_young_notify() with ptep_clear_young_notify() in
> folio_referenced_one(). However, I'm not sure if removing the tlb flush
> operation is applicable to every architecture in kernel, so dropping
> the tlb flush for ARM64 seems a sensible change.
At least x86/s390/riscv/powerpc already do it, also I think we could
change pmdp_clear_flush_young_notify() too, since it is same with
ptep_clear_flush_young_notify(),
>
> Note: I am okay for both approach, if someone can help to ensure that
> all architectures do not need the tlb flush when clearing the accessed
> bit, then I also think Barry's patch is better (hope Barry can resend
> his patch).
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220617070555.344368-1-21cnbao@gmail.com/
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> index 0bd18de9fd97..2979d796ba9d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
> @@ -905,21 +905,22 @@ static inline int ptep_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> static inline int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
> {
> - int young = ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
> -
> - if (young) {
> - /*
> - * We can elide the trailing DSB here since the worst that can
> - * happen is that a CPU continues to use the young entry in its
> - * TLB and we mistakenly reclaim the associated page. The
> - * window for such an event is bounded by the next
> - * context-switch, which provides a DSB to complete the TLB
> - * invalidation.
> - */
> - flush_tlb_page_nosync(vma, address);
> - }
> -
> - return young;
> + /*
> + * This comment is borrowed from x86, but applies equally to ARM64:
> + *
> + * Clearing the accessed bit without a TLB flush doesn't cause
> + * data corruption. [ It could cause incorrect page aging and
> + * the (mistaken) reclaim of hot pages, but the chance of that
> + * should be relatively low. ]
> + *
> + * So as a performance optimization don't flush the TLB when
> + * clearing the accessed bit, it will eventually be flushed by
> + * a context switch or a VM operation anyway. [ In the rare
> + * event of it not getting flushed for a long time the delay
> + * shouldn't really matter because there's no real memory
> + * pressure for swapout to react to. ]
> + */
> + return ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
> }
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-24 13:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-24 12:56 Baolin Wang
2023-10-24 13:48 ` Kefeng Wang [this message]
2023-10-25 1:44 ` Baolin Wang
2023-10-24 22:32 ` Yu Zhao
2023-10-24 23:16 ` Barry Song
2023-10-24 23:31 ` Barry Song
2023-10-25 1:07 ` Alistair Popple
2023-10-25 1:44 ` Barry Song
2023-10-25 1:58 ` Alistair Popple
2023-10-25 2:43 ` Baolin Wang
2023-10-25 3:09 ` Alistair Popple
2023-10-25 6:17 ` Yu Zhao
2023-10-25 6:27 ` Barry Song
2023-10-25 10:12 ` Alistair Popple
2023-10-25 18:22 ` Yu Zhao
2023-10-25 23:32 ` Alistair Popple
2023-10-26 23:48 ` Barry Song
2023-10-25 2:02 ` Baolin Wang
2023-10-25 1:39 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-10-25 3:03 ` Baolin Wang
2023-10-25 3:08 ` Yin, Fengwei
2023-10-25 3:15 ` Baolin Wang
2023-10-25 4:34 ` Barry Song
2023-11-07 10:12 ` Will Deacon
2023-11-07 20:50 ` Barry Song
2023-10-26 4:55 ` Anshuman Khandual
2023-10-26 5:54 ` Barry Song
2023-10-26 6:01 ` Anshuman Khandual
2023-10-26 12:30 ` Robin Murphy
2023-10-26 12:32 ` Baolin Wang
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=e0b65883-18fa-40c8-a61a-bebcfee109a4@huawei.com \
--to=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=v-songbaohua@oppo.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--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