On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:42:29AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 10:35 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 09:08:21AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > Unconditional mmap_write_lock around free_pgtables in exit_mmap seems > > > to me the most semantically correct way forward and the pushback is on > > > the basis of regressing performance of the exit path. I would like to > > > measure that regression to confirm this. I don't have access to a big > > > machine but will ask someone in another Google team to try the test > > > Michal wrote here > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20170725142626.GJ26723@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ on > > > a server with and without a custom patch. > > > > Sorry to hijack this, but could you ask that team to also test this > > patch? I think there's probably a good-sized win here, but I have no > > profiles to share at this point. I've only done light testing, and > > it may have bugs. > > > > NB: I only did the exit() path here. fork() conversion is left as an > > exercise for the reader^W^W Liam. > > To clarify, this patch does not change the mmap_write_lock portion of > exit_mmap. Do you want to test it in isolation or with the locking > changes in exit_mmap I mentioned? Correct, it does not. I think it's interesting to test it in isolation, but if you want to test it in in combination, that could also be interesting (see if we regain some of the expected performance loss). I just don't have a NUMA box of my own to test on, so I'm hoping to exploit your test infrastructure ;-) By the way, my vmavec patch should also be helpful on small systems like phones ... ;-)
