[RFC PATCH] Fix aio performance regression for database caused by THP

* [RFC PATCH] Fix aio performance regression for database caused by THP
@ 2013-08-15 18:13 ` Khalid Aziz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Khalid Aziz @ 2013-08-15 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: aarcange, akpm, hannes, mgorman, riel, minchan, linux-mm, linux-kernel

I am working with a tool that simulates oracle database I/O workload.
This tool (orion to be specific -
<http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E11882_01/server.112/e16638/iodesign.htm#autoId24>) allocates hugetlbfs pages using shmget() with SHM_HUGETLB flag. It then does aio into these pages from flash disks using various common block sizes used by database. I am looking at performance with two of the most common block sizes - 1M and 64K. aio performance with these two block sizes plunged after Transparent HugePages was introduced in the kernel. Here are performance numbers:

		pre-THP		2.6.39		3.11-rc5
1M read		8384 MB/s	5629 MB/s	6501 MB/s
64K read	7867 MB/s	4576 MB/s	4251 MB/s

I have narrowed the performance impact down to the overheads introduced
by THP in __get_page_tail() and put_compound_page() routines. perf top
shows >40% of cycles being spent in these two routines. Every time
direct I/O to hugetlbfs pages starts, kernel calls get_page() to grab a
reference to the pages and calls put_page() when I/O completes to put
the reference away. THP introduced significant amount of locking
overhead to get_page() and put_page() when dealing with compound pages
because hugepages can be split underneath get_page() and put_page(). It
added this overhead irrespective of whether it is dealing with hugetlbfs
pages or transparent hugepages. This resulted in 20%-45% drop in aio
performance when using hugetlbfs pages.

Since hugetlbfs pages can not be split, there is no reason to go through
all the locking overhead for these pages from what I can see. I added
code to __get_page_tail() and put_compound_page() to bypass all the
locking code when working with hugetlbfs pages. This improved
performance significantly. Performance numbers with this patch:

		pre-THP		3.11-rc5	3.11-rc5 + Patch
1M read		8384 MB/s	6501 MB/s	8371 MB/s
64K read	7867 MB/s	4251 MB/s	6510 MB/s

Performance with 64K read is still lower than what it was before THP,
but still a 53% improvement. It does mean there is more work to be done
but I will take a 53% improvement for now.

Please take a look at the following patch and let me know if it looks
reasonable.


Signed-off-by: Khalid Aziz <khalid.aziz@oracle.com>
---
 mm/swap.c |   77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
index 62b78a6..cc8326f 100644
--- a/mm/swap.c
+++ b/mm/swap.c
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
 #include <linux/memcontrol.h>
 #include <linux/gfp.h>
 #include <linux/uio.h>
+#include <linux/hugetlb.h>
 
 #include "internal.h"
 
@@ -81,6 +82,19 @@ static void __put_compound_page(struct page *page)
 
 static void put_compound_page(struct page *page)
 {
+	/*
+	 * hugetlbfs pages can not be split from under us. If this
+	 * is a hugetlbfs page, check refcount on head page and release
+	 * the page if refcount is zero.
+	 */
+	if (PageHuge(page)) {
+		page = compound_head(page);
+		if (put_page_testzero(page))
+			__put_compound_page(page);
+
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (unlikely(PageTail(page))) {
 		/* __split_huge_page_refcount can run under us */
 		struct page *page_head = compound_trans_head(page);
@@ -184,38 +198,51 @@ bool __get_page_tail(struct page *page)
 	 * proper PT lock that already serializes against
 	 * split_huge_page().
 	 */
-	unsigned long flags;
 	bool got = false;
-	struct page *page_head = compound_trans_head(page);
+	struct page *page_head;
 
-	if (likely(page != page_head && get_page_unless_zero(page_head))) {
+	/*
+	 * If this is a hugetlbfs page, it can not be split under
+	 * us. Simply increment refcount for head page
+	 */
+	if (PageHuge(page)) {
+		page_head = compound_head(page);
+		atomic_inc(&page_head->_count);
+		got = true;
+	} else {
+		unsigned long flags;
+
+		page_head = compound_trans_head(page);
+		if (likely(page != page_head &&
+					get_page_unless_zero(page_head))) {
+
+			/* Ref to put_compound_page() comment. */
+			if (PageSlab(page_head)) {
+				if (likely(PageTail(page))) {
+					__get_page_tail_foll(page, false);
+					return true;
+				} else {
+					put_page(page_head);
+					return false;
+				}
+			}
 
-		/* Ref to put_compound_page() comment. */
-		if (PageSlab(page_head)) {
+			/*
+			 * page_head wasn't a dangling pointer but it
+			 * may not be a head page anymore by the time
+			 * we obtain the lock. That is ok as long as it
+			 * can't be freed from under us.
+			 */
+			flags = compound_lock_irqsave(page_head);
+			/* here __split_huge_page_refcount won't run anymore */
 			if (likely(PageTail(page))) {
 				__get_page_tail_foll(page, false);
-				return true;
-			} else {
-				put_page(page_head);
-				return false;
+				got = true;
 			}
+			compound_unlock_irqrestore(page_head, flags);
+			if (unlikely(!got))
+				put_page(page_head);
 		}
-
-		/*
-		 * page_head wasn't a dangling pointer but it
-		 * may not be a head page anymore by the time
-		 * we obtain the lock. That is ok as long as it
-		 * can't be freed from under us.
-		 */
-		flags = compound_lock_irqsave(page_head);
-		/* here __split_huge_page_refcount won't run anymore */
-		if (likely(PageTail(page))) {
-			__get_page_tail_foll(page, false);
-			got = true;
-		}
-		compound_unlock_irqrestore(page_head, flags);
-		if (unlikely(!got))
-			put_page(page_head);
 	}
 	return got;
 }
-- 
1.7.10.4




^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread