"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Aug 07, 2017 at 03:21:31PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote: >> From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Huge page helps to reduce TLB miss rate, but it has higher cache >> footprint, sometimes this may cause some issue. For example, when >> clearing huge page on x86_64 platform, the cache footprint is 2M. But >> on a Xeon E5 v3 2699 CPU, there are 18 cores, 36 threads, and only 45M >> LLC (last level cache). That is, in average, there are 2.5M LLC for >> each core and 1.25M LLC for each thread. If the cache pressure is >> heavy when clearing the huge page, and we clear the huge page from the >> begin to the end, it is possible that the begin of huge page is >> evicted from the cache after we finishing clearing the end of the huge >> page. And it is possible for the application to access the begin of >> the huge page after clearing the huge page. >> >> To help the above situation, in this patch, when we clear a huge page, >> the order to clear sub-pages is changed. In quite some situation, we >> can get the address that the application will access after we clear >> the huge page, for example, in a page fault handler. Instead of >> clearing the huge page from begin to end, we will clear the sub-pages >> farthest from the the sub-page to access firstly, and clear the >> sub-page to access last. This will make the sub-page to access most >> cache-hot and sub-pages around it more cache-hot too. If we cannot >> know the address the application will access, the begin of the huge >> page is assumed to be the the address the application will access. >> >> With this patch, the throughput increases ~28.3% in vm-scalability >> anon-w-seq test case with 72 processes on a 2 socket Xeon E5 v3 2699 >> system (36 cores, 72 threads). The test case creates 72 processes, >> each process mmap a big anonymous memory area and writes to it from >> the begin to the end. For each process, other processes could be seen >> as other workload which generates heavy cache pressure. At the same >> time, the cache miss rate reduced from ~33.4% to ~31.7%, the >> IPC (instruction per cycle) increased from 0.56 to 0.74, and the time >> spent in user space is reduced ~7.9% > > That's impressive. > > But what about the case when we are not bounded that much by the size of > LLC? What about running the same test on the same hardware, but with 4 > processes instead of 72. > > I just want to make sure we don't regress on more realistic tast case. Sure. I will test it. Best Regards, Huang, Ying -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
