linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Prathu Baronia <prathu.baronia@oneplus.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, alexander.duyck@gmail.com,
	chintan.pandya@oneplus.com, mhocko@suse.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	gregkh@linuxfoundation.com, gthelen@google.com, jack@suse.cz,
	ken.lin@oneplus.com, gasine.xu@oneplus.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
	mark.rutland@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Optimized hugepage zeroing & copying from user
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 20:08:42 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200422143841.ozuow4jkltzymvgs@oneplus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200422111928.GA32051@willie-the-truck>

The 04/22/2020 12:19, Will Deacon wrote:
> 
> I wrote the silly harness below for the snippets given in [1] but I can't
> see any difference between the forwards and backwards versions on any arm64
> systems I have access to.
> 
> Will
> 
> --->8
> 
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <string.h>
> #include <time.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> 
> [...]
> int main(void)
> {
> 	void *buf;
> 	unsigned long long delta;
> 	struct timespec ts_start, ts_end;
> 
> 	if (posix_memalign(&buf, PAGE_SIZE, BUF_SZ)) {
> 		perror("posix_memalign()");
> 		return -1;
> 	}
> 
> 	memset(buf, 0xd, BUF_SZ);
> 
> [...]

With this exact test code I also didn't observe any significant difference between
forward and backwards versions on SM8150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output on 8150 under controlled conditions(CPU0 & 6 turned on, CPUs set to max
frequency and DDR set to performance governor):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwards: took 0.319658 seconds
Backwards: took 0.320983 seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But when I used malloc instead of posix_memalign because that was the big difference
between this and our test code, I observed significant difference between
forward and backwards version on SM8150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output on 8150 under controlled conditions(CPU0 & 6 turned on, CPUs set to max
frequency and DDR set to performance governor):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwards: took 0.323157 seconds
Backwards: took 0.581638 seconds
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know the implementation differences between posix_memalign and
malloc which might lead to these results.

-- 
Prathu Baronia
OnePlus RnD


  reply	other threads:[~2020-04-22 14:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-04-14 15:38 [PATCH v2] mm: Optimized hugepage zeroing & copying from user Prathu Baronia
2020-04-14 17:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-14 17:41   ` Daniel Jordan
     [not found]   ` <20200414184743.GB2097@oneplus.com>
2020-04-14 19:32     ` Alexander Duyck
2020-04-15  3:40       ` Huang, Ying
2020-04-15 11:09         ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-19 12:05       ` Prathu Baronia
2020-04-14 19:40     ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-15  3:27 ` Huang, Ying
2020-04-16  1:21   ` Huang, Ying
2020-04-19 15:58   ` Prathu Baronia
2020-04-20  0:18     ` Huang, Ying
2020-04-21  9:36       ` Prathu Baronia
2020-04-21 10:09         ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 12:47           ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-04-21 12:48             ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-04-21 13:39               ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 13:48                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2020-04-21 13:56                   ` Chintan Pandya
2020-04-22  8:18                   ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 11:19                     ` Will Deacon
2020-04-22 14:38                       ` Prathu Baronia [this message]
2020-05-01  8:58                         ` Prathu Baronia
2020-05-05  8:59                           ` Will Deacon
2020-04-21 13:00             ` Michal Hocko
2020-04-21 13:10               ` Will Deacon
2020-04-17  7:48 ` [mm] 134c8b410f: vm-scalability.median -7.9% regression kernel test robot

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=20200422143841.ozuow4jkltzymvgs@oneplus.com \
    --to=prathu.baronia@oneplus.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alexander.duyck@gmail.com \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=chintan.pandya@oneplus.com \
    --cc=gasine.xu@oneplus.com \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=ken.lin@oneplus.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).