From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7 v1] Speed up page cache truncation To: Jan Kara , Andi Kleen References: <20171010151937.26984-1-jack@suse.cz> <878tgisyo6.fsf@linux.intel.com> <20171011080658.GK3667@quack2.suse.cz> Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Mel Gorman , "Kirill A. Shutemov" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:34:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20171011080658.GK3667@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On 10/11/2017 01:06 AM, Jan Kara wrote: >>> when rebasing our enterprise distro to a newer kernel (from 4.4 to 4.12) we >>> have noticed a regression in bonnie++ benchmark when deleting files. >>> Eventually we have tracked this down to a fact that page cache truncation got >>> slower by about 10%. There were both gains and losses in the above interval of >>> kernels but we have been able to identify that commit 83929372f629 "filemap: >>> prepare find and delete operations for huge pages" caused about 10% regression >>> on its own. >> It's odd that just checking if some pages are huge should be that >> expensive, but ok .. > Yeah, I was surprised as well but profiles were pretty clear on this - part > of the slowdown was caused by loads of page->_compound_head (PageTail() > and page_compound() use that) which we previously didn't have to load at > all, part was in hpage_nr_pages() function and its use. Well, page->_compound_head is part of the same cacheline as the rest of the page, and the page is surely getting touched during truncation at _some_ point. The hpage_nr_pages() might cause the cacheline to get loaded earlier than before, but I can't imagine that it's that expensive. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org