lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC 0/6] the big khugepaged redesign
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:46:43 -0800 Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 13:58 +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > Recently, there was concern expressed (e.g. [1]) whether the quite aggressive
> > THP allocation attempts on page faults are a good performance trade-off.
> >
> > - THP allocations add to page fault latency, as high-order allocations are
> > notoriously expensive. Page allocation slowpath now does extra checks for
> > GFP_TRANSHUGE && !PF_KTHREAD to avoid the more expensive synchronous
> > compaction for user page faults. But even async compaction can be expensive.
> > - During the first page fault in a 2MB range we cannot predict how much of the
> > range will be actually accessed - we can theoretically waste as much as 511
> > worth of pages [2]. Or, the pages in the range might be accessed from CPUs
> > from different NUMA nodes and while base pages could be all local, THP could
> > be remote to all but one CPU. The cost of remote accesses due to this false
> > sharing would be higher than any savings on the TLB.
> > - The interaction with memcg are also problematic [1].
> >
> > Now I don't have any hard data to show how big these problems are, and I
> > expect we will discuss this on LSF/MM (and hope somebody has such data [3]).
> > But it's certain that e.g. SAP recommends to disable THPs [4] for their apps
> > for performance reasons.
>
> There are plenty of examples of this, ie for Oracle:
>
> https://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/performance_issues_with_transparent_huge

hm, five months ago and I don't recall seeing any followup to this.
Does anyone know what's happening?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-24 00:21    [W:0.041 / U:8.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site