linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
	Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:52:48 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160613125248.GA30109@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFy4oYis6HTu7o4YwiFawRtDOPO=87v8oHZdTFS+BjnA8g@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 06:02:57PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > From perf profile, the time spent in page_fault and its children
> > functions are almost same (7.85% vs 7.81%).  So the time spent in page
> > fault and page table operation itself doesn't changed much.  So, you
> > mean CPU may be slower to load the page table entry to TLB if accessed
> > bit is not set?
> 
> So the CPU does take a microfault internally when it needs to set the
> accessed/dirty bit. It's not architecturally visible, but you can see
> it when you do timing loops.
> 
> I've timed it at over a thousand cycles on at least some CPU's, but
> that's still peanuts compared to a real page fault. It shouldn't be
> *that* noticeable, ie no way it's a 6% regression on its own.

Looks like setting accessed bit is the problem.

Withouth mkold:

Score: 1952.9

  Performance counter stats for './Run shell8 -c 1' (3 runs):
 
    468,562,316,621      cycles:u                                                      ( +-  0.02% )
      4,596,299,472      dtlb_load_misses_walk_duration:u                                     ( +-  0.07% )
      5,245,488,559      itlb_misses_walk_duration:u                                     ( +-  0.10% )
 
      189.336404566 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.01% )

With mkold:

Score: 1885.5

  Performance counter stats for './Run shell8 -c 1' (3 runs):
 
    503,185,676,256      cycles:u                                                      ( +-  0.06% )
      8,137,007,894      dtlb_load_misses_walk_duration:u                                     ( +-  0.85% )
      7,220,632,283      itlb_misses_walk_duration:u                                     ( +-  1.40% )
 
      189.363223499 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.01% )

We spend 36% more time in page walk only, about 1% of total userspace time.
Combining this with page walk footprint on caches, I guess we can get to
this 3.5% score difference I see.

I'm not sure if there's anything we can do to solve the issue without
screwing relacim logic again. :(

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-06-13 12:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-06  2:27 kernel test robot
2016-06-06  9:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-08  7:21   ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-08  8:41     ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-08  8:58       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-12  0:49         ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-12  1:02           ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-13  9:02             ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-14 13:38               ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-15 23:42                 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-13 12:52             ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2016-06-14  6:11               ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-14  8:26                 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-14 16:07                   ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-14 14:03                 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-06-14  8:57         ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-14 14:34           ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-15 23:52             ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-16  0:13               ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-16 22:27                 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-17  5:41                   ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-17 19:26                     ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-20  0:06                       ` Minchan Kim

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=20160613125248.GA30109@black.fi.intel.com \
    --to=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vinmenon@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --subject='Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression' \
    /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

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).