From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5BE3C0044D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:19:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D6902071C for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 10:19:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1584353942; bh=Vefw0rWCOZpqAUIZntXEt6tl/ofqhSugEWMHFuHnX3k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=WkrXvKCgoIkAffNBjM6qHagzvB/45XfAuyplfg/eaiQ9EdXUGVjKZ9OSUeHTh2ngd prcDYeIWylrXMkV5H7NCZZ6pUvbrPZx8vnaG3rcdQCW+YP+Z9TehYxeqjCmuFm04OX wI+/sNQy3OlnyqptuWQimJ/W0cJrVGrXBhCQhwuk= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730584AbgCPKTB (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:19:01 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:45586 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730478AbgCPKTB (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 06:19:01 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id t2so10368473wrx.12 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:18:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=by4TvxxMh1J37odWANeJUA5THAbr8krIjoLe+U1XJ7k=; b=fy6Pxjb7f9i/Uf8ak/mOk1sGETUJYFpwa99IINLRopQEC1xvjHPAhxKAjci2bAomd8 GQkOUhK8VhXbHKWa3Gf0w+cgir0N8yaHOtFqMG8jhGnsm7hZpV9Nwrp5F6yeOjemGod6 utu4+syylb8pYmdD75rS2eNqMhtf+kaVPPOpPSYrDadmzAyQZxY1UtofVPgs4rf8dXLB KMQ9oulCw5w6E7fYbHVpSeiGUO8BPuUeBifgmWVwJ6xW+0UR16se+rBuJYY9YWw/G5sd 93KgPixxC2kpzqGvQMU3Fv+YX5iTU2FN433+p9JHba3QOtc26xPfvqtEl4JLyYYcJQEP uRhg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ2Mb2kZcnmPqMefKzV27AWylhXYU56U3IAI/Vj/fqK/d8jGpbSC DIGPg+FcUjkniqtux2muwDs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vvY2dgrTYsWHy/KEnlB83n0mcQTm5pzCWK5yaHgD/keyG/GxRuHniGV5zf0c0nY9Snhutdulw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e4c9:: with SMTP id v9mr6105982wrm.188.1584353939301; Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:18:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-254-25.eurotel.cz. [37.188.254.25]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x17sm55358420wrt.31.2020.03.16.03.18.57 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 16 Mar 2020 03:18:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 11:18:56 +0100 From: Michal Hocko To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: Cannon Matthews , Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Mike Kravetz , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Greg Thelen , Salman Qazi , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86 Message-ID: <20200316101856.GH11482@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com> <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box> <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20200309153831.GK1454533@tassilo.jf.intel.com> <20200309183704.GA1573@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200311005447.jkpsaghrpk3c4rwu@box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200311005447.jkpsaghrpk3c4rwu@box> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed 11-03-20 03:54:47, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 05:21:30PM -0700, Cannon Matthews wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 11:37 AM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 08:38:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > Gigantic huge pages are a bit different. They are much less dynamic from > > > > > the usage POV in my experience. Micro-optimizations for the first access > > > > > tends to not matter at all as it is usually pre-allocation scenario. On > > > > > the other hand, speeding up the initialization sounds like a good thing > > > > > in general. It will be a single time benefit but if the additional code > > > > > is not hard to maintain then I would be inclined to take it even with > > > > > "artificial" numbers state above. There really shouldn't be other downsides > > > > > except for the code maintenance, right? > > > > > > > > There's a cautious tale of the old crappy RAID5 XOR assembler functions which > > > > were optimized a long time ago for the Pentium1, and stayed around, > > > > even though the compiler could actually do a better job. > > > > > > > > String instructions are constantly improving in performance (Broadwell is > > > > very old at this point) Most likely over time (and maybe even today > > > > on newer CPUs) you would need much more sophisticated unrolled MOVNTI variants > > > > (or maybe even AVX-*) to be competitive. > > > > > > Presumably you have access to current and maybe even some unreleased > > > CPUs ... I mean, he's posted the patches, so you can test this hypothesis. > > > > I don't have the data at hand, but could reproduce it if strongly > > desired, but I've also tested this on skylake and cascade lake, and > > we've had success running with this for a while now. > > > > When developing this originally, I tested all of this compared with > > AVX-* instructions as well as the string ops, they all seemed to be > > functionally equivalent, and all were beat out by this MOVNTI thing for > > large regions of 1G pages. > > > > There is probably room to further optimize the MOVNTI stuff with better > > loop unrolling or optimizations, if anyone has specific suggestions I'm > > happy to try to incorporate them, but this has shown to be effective as > > written so far, and I think I lack that assembly expertise to micro > > optimize further on my own. > > Andi's point is that string instructions might be a better bet in a long > run. You may win something with MOVNTI on current CPUs, but it may become > a burden on newer microarchitectures when string instructions improves. > Nobody realistically would re-validate if MOVNTI microoptimazation still > make sense for every new microarchitecture. While this might be true, isn't that easily solveable by the existing ALTERNATIVE and cpu features framework. Can we have a feature bit to tell that movnti is worthwile for large data copy routines. Probably something for x86 maintainers. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs