linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	0day robot <lkp@intel.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, Wei Xu <weixugc@google.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	"Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@intel.com>,
	zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [mm/page_alloc] 8212a964ee: vm-scalability.throughput 30.5% improvement
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2022 14:10:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJwBe4+C8KP--c_9O6QE_Tou+1Z0+ugtuniG-06nzxPmg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f499c76-68cb-a2c3-01fd-c8759e2fd317@suse.cz>

On Sun, Mar 13, 2022 at 1:29 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> On 3/13/22 00:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 10:59 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 3/12/22 16:43, kernel test robot wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Greeting,
> >>>
> >>> FYI, we noticed a 30.5% improvement of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> commit: 8212a964ee020471104e34dce7029dec33c218a9 ("Re: [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: call check_new_pages() while zone spinlock is not held")
> >>> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Mel-Gorman/Re-PATCH-v2-mm-page_alloc-call-check_new_pages-while-zone-spinlock-is-not-held/20220309-203504
> >>> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220309123245.GI15701@techsingularity.net
> >>
> >> Heh, that's weird. I would expect some improvement from Eric's patch,
> >> but this seems to be actually about Mel's "mm/page_alloc: check
> >> high-order pages for corruption during PCP operations" applied directly
> >> on 5.17-rc7 per the github url above. This was rather expected to make
> >> performance worse if anything, so maybe the improvement is due to some
> >> unexpected side-effect of different inlining decisions or cache alignment...
> >>
> >
> > I doubt this has anything to do with inlining or cache alignment.
> >
> > I am not familiar with the benchmark, but its name
> > (anon-w-rand-hugetlb) hints at hugetlb ?
> >
> > After Mel fix, we go over 512 'struct page' to perform sanity checks,
> > thus loading into cpu caches the 512 cache lines.
>
> Ah, that's true.
>
> > This caching is done while no lock is held.
>
> But I don't think this is. The test was AFAICS done without your patch,
> so the lock is still held in rmqueue(). And it's also held in
> rmqueue_bulk() -> check_pcp_refill().

Note that Mel patch  touches both check_pcp_refill() and check_new_pcp()

__rmqueue_pcplist() definitely calls check_new_pcp() while the zone
spinlock is _not_ held.

Note that it is possible to defer calls to check_pcp_refill after the
spinlock is released.

Untested patch:

diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 1804287c1b792b8aa0e964b17eb002b6b1115258..3c504b4c068a5dbeeaf8f386bb09b673236f7a11
100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -3024,6 +3024,7 @@ static int rmqueue_bulk(struct zone *zone,
unsigned int order,
                        unsigned long count, struct list_head *list,
                        int migratetype, unsigned int alloc_flags)
 {
+       struct page *page, *tmp;
        int i, allocated = 0;

        /*
@@ -3032,14 +3033,10 @@ static int rmqueue_bulk(struct zone *zone,
unsigned int order,
         */
        spin_lock(&zone->lock);
        for (i = 0; i < count; ++i) {
-               struct page *page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype,
-                                                               alloc_flags);
+               page = __rmqueue(zone, order, migratetype, alloc_flags);
                if (unlikely(page == NULL))
                        break;

-               if (unlikely(check_pcp_refill(page)))
-                       continue;
-
                /*
                 * Split buddy pages returned by expand() are received here in
                 * physical page order. The page is added to the tail of
@@ -3065,6 +3062,12 @@ static int rmqueue_bulk(struct zone *zone,
unsigned int order,
         */
        __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(i << order));
        spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
+       list_for_each_entry_safe(page, tmp, list, lru) {
+               if (unlikely(check_pcp_refill(page))) {
+                       list_del(&page->lru);
+                       allocated--;
+               }
+       }
        return allocated;
 }

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-13 21:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-04 17:02 [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: call check_new_pages() while zone spinlock is not held Eric Dumazet
2022-03-04 19:19 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-03-06 22:15 ` David Rientjes
2022-03-07  9:15 ` Mel Gorman
2022-03-08 23:49   ` Eric Dumazet
2022-03-09 12:32     ` Mel Gorman
2022-03-09 17:32       ` Eric Dumazet
2022-03-12 15:43       ` [mm/page_alloc] 8212a964ee: vm-scalability.throughput 30.5% improvement kernel test robot
2022-03-12 18:58         ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-03-12 23:26           ` Eric Dumazet
2022-03-13  9:28             ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-03-13 21:10               ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2022-03-13 21:18                 ` Matthew Wilcox
2022-03-13 21:27                   ` Eric Dumazet
2022-03-13 21:36                     ` Eric Dumazet
2022-03-14  9:09                 ` Vlastimil Babka
2022-03-07  9:24 ` [PATCH v2] mm/page_alloc: call check_new_pages() while zone spinlock is not held Vlastimil Babka

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=CANn89iJwBe4+C8KP--c_9O6QE_Tou+1Z0+ugtuniG-06nzxPmg@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=weixugc@google.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).