On 03/01/2018 03:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Thu 01-03-18 14:28:45, Aaron Lu wrote: >> When a page is freed back to the global pool, its buddy will be checked >> to see if it's possible to do a merge. This requires accessing buddy's >> page structure and that access could take a long time if it's cache cold. >> >> This patch adds a prefetch to the to-be-freed page's buddy outside of >> zone->lock in hope of accessing buddy's page structure later under >> zone->lock will be faster. Since we *always* do buddy merging and check >> an order-0 page's buddy to try to merge it when it goes into the main >> allocator, the cacheline will always come in, i.e. the prefetched data >> will never be unused. >> >> In the meantime, there are two concerns: >> 1 the prefetch could potentially evict existing cachelines, especially >> for L1D cache since it is not huge; >> 2 there is some additional instruction overhead, namely calculating >> buddy pfn twice. >> >> For 1, it's hard to say, this microbenchmark though shows good result but >> the actual benefit of this patch will be workload/CPU dependant; >> For 2, since the calculation is a XOR on two local variables, it's expected >> in many cases that cycles spent will be offset by reduced memory latency >> later. This is especially true for NUMA machines where multiple CPUs are >> contending on zone->lock and the most time consuming part under zone->lock >> is the wait of 'struct page' cacheline of the to-be-freed pages and their >> buddies. >> >> Test with will-it-scale/page_fault1 full load: >> >> kernel Broadwell(2S) Skylake(2S) Broadwell(4S) Skylake(4S) >> v4.16-rc2+ 9034215 7971818 13667135 15677465 >> patch2/3 9536374 +5.6% 8314710 +4.3% 14070408 +3.0% 16675866 +6.4% >> this patch 10338868 +8.4% 8544477 +2.8% 14839808 +5.5% 17155464 +2.9% >> Note: this patch's performance improvement percent is against patch2/3. > > I am really surprised that this has such a big impact. It's even stranger to me. Struct page is 64 bytes these days, exactly a a cache line. Unless that changed, Intel CPUs prefetched a "buddy" cache line (that forms an aligned 128 bytes block with the one we touch). Which is exactly a order-0 buddy struct page! Maybe that implicit prefetching stopped at L2 and explicit goes all the way to L1, can't remember. Would that make such a difference? It would be nice to do some perf tests with cache counters to see what is really going on... Vlastimil > Is this a win on > other architectures as well? > >> [changelog stole from Dave Hansen and Mel Gorman's comments] >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/24/551 > > Please use http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<msg-id> for references because > lkml.org is quite unstable. It would be > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/148a42d8-8306-2f2f-7f7c-86bc118f8ccd@xxxxxxxxx > here. > -- 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>
