lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] mm, vmacache: hash addresses based on pmd
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 17:50:03 -0700 (PDT) David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com> wrote:

> When perf profiling a wide variety of different workloads, it was found
> that vmacache_find() had higher than expected cost: up to 0.08% of cpu
> utilization in some cases. This was found to rival other core VM
> functions such as alloc_pages_vma() with thp enabled and default
> mempolicy, and the conditionals in __get_vma_policy().
>
> VMACACHE_HASH() determines which of the four per-task_struct slots a vma
> is cached for a particular address. This currently depends on the pfn,
> so pfn 5212 occupies a different vmacache slot than its neighboring
> pfn 5213.
>
> vmacache_find() iterates through all four of current's vmacache slots
> when looking up an address. Hashing based on pfn, an address has
> ~1/VMACACHE_SIZE chance of being cached in the first vmacache slot, or
> about 25%, *if* the vma is cached.
>
> This patch hashes an address by its pmd instead of pte to optimize for
> workloads with good spatial locality. This results in a higher
> probability of vmas being cached in the first slot that is checked:
> normally ~70% on the same workloads instead of 25%.

Was the improvement quantifiable?

Surprised. That little array will all be in CPU cache and that loop
should execute pretty quickly? If it's *that* sensitive then let's zap
the no-longer-needed WARN_ON. And we could hide all the event counting
behind some developer-only ifdef.

Did you consider LRU-sorting the array instead?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-10 03:09    [W:0.049 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site