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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,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 3130DC10DCE for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FDF20663 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="WSmMpUZs" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C5FDF20663 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=shutemov.name Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 576336B0003; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 527A26B0006; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:54:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 415026B0007; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:54:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0170.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.170]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F496B0003 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 20:54:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin09.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB21A8248047 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:54:49 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76581261498.09.basin23_d077e2ca281d X-HE-Tag: basin23_d077e2ca281d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 6820 Received: from mail-lf1-f67.google.com (mail-lf1-f67.google.com [209.85.167.67]) by imf48.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:54:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f67.google.com with SMTP id x22so217060lff.5 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:54:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=shutemov-name.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=dU7rtCVt6go/gNNK8rtDCCujWIWJ/R6M8Id+CxlENYo=; b=WSmMpUZsEPdj4pzVZWkKiN2YJ2Xi/GcQiJMhcJAb0574DSfV2UkfOcbsZtw64fN819 RWXkgIKwU851T08tcRgLSg54v9iVaGeZYkaaivk6T2m3S6m1YvP90hIvc6EhAQ8C0lNo MTjDnnpP1YzW5/19aJ4rIEKxuCiL1MFm8mRrK7aHKtfpFU9RL7AnSD03Q2m4uJqn5+QZ tyiF+GdemDV3kfurtm6Kt6/CSFiiWxaC4LrOEH1LyWihqsq5yivUvVXH5DHVNe8Ux5rA DhBMK6hGceXQhAm+5gLO71tmopU4AAUPsI1bs3qdXLJMO62dktnNNsqPMSwu+jqdveUa NECQ== 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=dU7rtCVt6go/gNNK8rtDCCujWIWJ/R6M8Id+CxlENYo=; b=EN2gOEO8CVEACkfVE9QzgAmiEgf6Br019X9k6dC3SfPIriZ101Fvz9XJy9AG8D300p lEZoMhEaPaE8uWs0iZdIWq4XI1CvSE3vSuN/jw3oaPHgPx1Yk9XM4kyYA9gVGKIalI1D fYC8FmV7V5HMWFosPeWnhMWU5TzeVHpJ9DfD+oEO7AwHxHmIBRGjoUGwuCqwFQQ/tYwb DdZ9kG/d30ysu196fQ4jTWjPiTu1EsycqxwFu7c6G3DbbBHfm63sHWw2+GdifoMmiwQh xRNfFtSvhiPzTo8FuB62rgClTkChbeJt6Izp7RUjnA8l0kS2/+emuC7NHd9VVOCbxr4C ZiNg== X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0zoyu9HoD5coff6gFPKVg7uovYbugJxuW2hvlkSSIiTOjhO/a4 YWvWzBmX6zyv7MKDgSfCo/vS1A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsXiPvXIDKQPuN/RXNRI1rzt32lyC92lEXxkc2mW2G48M5+okJRIYfpt0ctOGr7QqHYwldSVw== X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4565:: with SMTP id k5mr436749lfm.8.1583888087712; Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:54:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from box.localdomain ([86.57.175.117]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k2sm5652992lfo.36.2020.03.10.17.54.46 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 10 Mar 2020 17:54:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by box.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 81493100F99; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 03:54:47 +0300 (+03) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 03:54:47 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" To: Cannon Matthews Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Andi Kleen , Michal Hocko , 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: <20200311005447.jkpsaghrpk3c4rwu@box> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000002, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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. > > But just in general, while there are probably some ways this could be > made better, it does a good job so far for the workloads that are more > specific to 1G pages. > > Making it work for 2MiB in a convincing general purpose way is a harder > problem and feels out of scope, and further optimizations can always be > added later on for some other things. > > I'm working on a v2 of this patch addressing some of the nits mentioned > by Andrew, should have that hopefully soon. Have you got any data for a macrobenchmark? -- Kirill A. Shutemov