lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: Check if PTE is already allocated during page fault
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 11:12:48AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> With transparent hugepage support, handle_mm_fault() has to be careful
> that a normal PMD has been established before handling a PTE fault. To
> achieve this, it used __pte_alloc() directly instead of pte_alloc_map
> as pte_alloc_map is unsafe to run against a huge PMD. pte_offset_map()
> is called once it is known the PMD is safe.
>
> pte_alloc_map() is smart enough to check if a PTE is already present
> before calling __pte_alloc but this check was lost. As a consequence,
> PTEs may be allocated unnecessarily and the page table lock taken.
> Thi useless PTE does get cleaned up but it's a performance hit which
> is visible in page_test from aim9.
>
> This patch simply re-adds the check normally done by pte_alloc_map to
> check if the PTE needs to be allocated before taking the page table
> lock. The effect is noticable in page_test from aim9.
>
> AIM9
> 2.6.38-vanilla 2.6.38-checkptenone
> creat-clo 446.10 ( 0.00%) 424.47 (-5.10%)
> page_test 38.10 ( 0.00%) 42.04 ( 9.37%)
> brk_test 52.45 ( 0.00%) 51.57 (-1.71%)
> exec_test 382.00 ( 0.00%) 456.90 (16.39%)
> fork_test 60.11 ( 0.00%) 67.79 (11.34%)
> MMTests Statistics: duration
> Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 611.90 612.22
>
> (While this affects 2.6.38, it is a performance rather than a
> functional bug and normally outside the rules -stable. While the big
> performance differences are to a microbench, the difference in fork
> and exec performance may be significant enough that -stable wants to
> consider the patch)
>
> Reported-by: Raz Ben Yehuda <raziebe@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-27 15:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans