On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:32:37PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 30-07-19 21:11:10, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:35:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > On Mon 29-07-19 17:20:52, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 09:45:23AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > > On Mon 29-07-19 16:10:37, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > > In our testing(carmera recording), Miguel and Wei found unmap_page_range
> > > > > > takes above 6ms with preemption disabled easily. When I see that, the
> > > > > > reason is it holds page table spinlock during entire 512 page operation
> > > > > > in a PMD. 6.2ms is never trivial for user experince if RT task couldn't
> > > > > > run in the time because it could make frame drop or glitch audio problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > Where is the time spent during the tear down? 512 pages doesn't sound
> > > > > like a lot to tear down. Is it the TLB flushing?
> > > >
> > > > Miguel confirmed there is no such big latency without mark_page_accessed
> > > > in zap_pte_range so I guess it's the contention of LRU lock as well as
> > > > heavy activate_page overhead which is not trivial, either.
> > >
> > > Please give us more details ideally with some numbers.
> >
> > I had a time to benchmark it via adding some trace_printk hooks between
> > pte_offset_map_lock and pte_unmap_unlock in zap_pte_range. The testing
> > device is 2018 premium mobile device.
> >
> > I can get 2ms delay rather easily to release 2M(ie, 512 pages) when the
> > task runs on little core even though it doesn't have any IPI and LRU
> > lock contention. It's already too heavy.
> >
> > If I remove activate_page, 35-40% overhead of zap_pte_range is gone
> > so most of overhead(about 0.7ms) comes from activate_page via
> > mark_page_accessed. Thus, if there are LRU contention, that 0.7ms could
> > accumulate up to several ms.
>
> Thanks for this information. This is something that should be a part of
> the changelog. I am sorry to still poke into this because I still do not
I will include it.
> have a full understanding of what is going on and while I do not object
> to drop the spinlock I still suspect this is papering over a deeper
> problem.
I couldn't come up with better solution. Feel free to suggest it.
>
> If mark_page_accessed is really expensive then why do we even bother to
> do it in the tear down path in the first place? Why don't we simply set
> a referenced bit on the page to reflect the young pte bit? I might be
> missing something here of course.
commit bf3f3bc5e73
Author: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jan 6 14:38:55 2009 -0800
mm: don't mark_page_accessed in fault path
Doing a mark_page_accessed at fault-time, then doing SetPageReferenced at
unmap-time if the pte is young has a number of problems.
mark_page_accessed is supposed to be roughly the equivalent of a young pte
for unmapped references. Unfortunately it doesn't come with any context:
after being called, reclaim doesn't know who or why the page was touched.
So calling mark_page_accessed not only adds extra lru or PG_referenced
manipulations for pages that are already going to have pte_young ptes anyway,
but it also adds these references which are difficult to work with from the
context of vma specific references (eg. MADV_SEQUENTIAL pte_young may not
wish to contribute to the page being referenced).
Then, simply doing SetPageReferenced when zapping a pte and finding it is
young, is not a really good solution either. SetPageReferenced does not
correctly promote the page to the active list for example. So after removing
mark_page_accessed from the fault path, several mmap()+touch+munmap() would
have a very different result from several read(2) calls for example, which
is not really desirable.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
