lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma
From
Date
On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 18:57 -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> >> I'm slightly surprised this cache makes 15% hit. Which application
> >> get a benefit? You listed a lot of applications, but I'm not sure
> >> which is highly depending on largest vma.
> >
> > Well I chose the largest vma because it gives us a greater chance of
> > being already cached when we do the lookup for the faulted address.
> >
> > The 15% improvement was with Hadoop. According to my notes it was at
> > ~48% with the baseline kernel and increased to ~63% with this patch.
> >
> > In any case I didn't measure the rates on a per-task granularity, but at
> > a general system level. When a system is first booted I can see that the
> > mmap_cache access rate becomes the determinant factor and when adding a
> > workload it doesn't change much. One exception to this was a kernel
> > build, where we go from ~50% to ~89% hit rate on a vanilla kernel.
>
> I looked at this patch a bit. The worth of this is to improve the
> cache hit ratio
> of heap.
>
> 1) For single thread applications, heap is frequently largest mapping
> in the process.

Right.

> 2) For java VM, "java -Xms1000m -Xmx1000m HelloWorld" makes following
> /proc/<pid>/smaps entry. That said, JVM allocate single heap even if
> applications are multi threaded.

Oh, this is new to me and nicely explains why I see the most benefit in
java related workloads.

>
> c1800000-100000000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
> Size: 1024000 kB
> Rss: 244 kB
> Pss: 244 kB
> Shared_Clean: 0 kB
> Shared_Dirty: 0 kB
> Private_Clean: 0 kB
> Private_Dirty: 244 kB
> Referenced: 244 kB
> Anonymous: 244 kB
> AnonHugePages: 0 kB
> Swap: 0 kB
> KernelPageSize: 4 kB
> MMUPageSize: 4 kB
>
> That's good.
>
> However, we know there is a situation that this patch doesn't work.
> glibc makes per thread heap (arena) by default. So, it is not to be
> expected works well on glibc multi threaded programs. That's a
> slightly big limitation.

I think this is what Linus was referring to.

>
> Anyway, I haven't observed real performance difference because most
> big penalty of find_vma come from taking mmap_sem, not rb-tree search.

Yes, undoubtedly, which is why I'm using units of hit/miss rather than
workload throughput.

Thanks,
Davidlohr



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-04 06:01    [W:0.081 / U:5.320 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site