> Hi Yu,
>
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2023 at 03:02:32PM +0000, Ma, Yu wrote:
> > Thanks Liam and Dennis for review, this is updated patch with comment
> around:
> >
> > > When running UnixBench/Execl throughput case, false sharing is
> > > observed due to frequent read on base_addr and write on free_bytes,
> chunk_md.
> > >
> > > UnixBench/Execl represents a class of workload where bash scripts
> > > are spawned frequently to do some short jobs. It will do system call
> > > on execl frequently, and execl will call mm_init to initialize mm_struct of
> the process.
> > > mm_init will call __percpu_counter_init for percpu_counters initialization.
> > > Then pcpu_alloc is called to read the base_addr of pcpu_chunk for
> > > memory allocation. Inside pcpu_alloc, it will call pcpu_alloc_area
> > > to allocate memory from a specified chunk.
> > > This function will update "free_bytes" and "chunk_md" to record the
> > > rest free bytes and other meta data for this chunk. Correspondingly,
> > > pcpu_free_area will also update these 2 members when free memory.
> > > Call trace from perf is as below:
> > > + 57.15% 0.01% execl [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __percpu_counter_init
> > > + 57.13% 0.91% execl [kernel.kallsyms] [k] pcpu_alloc
> > > - 55.27% 54.51% execl [kernel.kallsyms] [k] osq_lock
> > > - 53.54% 0x654278696e552f34
> > > main
> > > __execve
> > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> > > do_syscall_64
> > > __x64_sys_execve
> > > do_execveat_common.isra.47
> > > alloc_bprm
> > > mm_init
> > > __percpu_counter_init
> > > pcpu_alloc
> > > - __mutex_lock.isra.17
> > >
> > > In current pcpu_chunk layout, ‘base_addr’ is in the same cache line
> > > with ‘free_bytes’ and ‘chunk_md’, and ‘base_addr’ is at the last 8
> > > bytes. This patch moves ‘bound_map’ up to ‘base_addr’, to let
> > > ‘base_addr’ locate in a new cacheline.
> > >
> > > With this change, on Intel Sapphire Rapids 112C/224T platform, based
> > > on v6.4-rc4, the 160 parallel score improves by 24%.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Ma <yu.ma@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > mm/percpu-internal.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/percpu-internal.h b/mm/percpu-internal.h index
> > > f9847c131998..ecc7be1ec876 100644
> > > --- a/mm/percpu-internal.h
> > > +++ b/mm/percpu-internal.h
> > > @@ -41,10 +41,16 @@ struct pcpu_chunk {
> > > struct list_head list; /* linked to pcpu_slot lists */
> > > int free_bytes; /* free bytes in the chunk */
> > > struct pcpu_block_md chunk_md;
> > > + unsigned long *bound_map; /* boundary map */
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * To reduce false sharing, current layout is optimized to make sure
> > > + * base_addr locate in the different cacheline with free_bytes and
> > > + * chunk_md.
> > > + */
> > > void *base_addr; /* base address of this chunk
> > > */
> > >
> > > unsigned long *alloc_map; /* allocation map */
> > > - unsigned long *bound_map; /* boundary map */
> > > struct pcpu_block_md *md_blocks; /* metadata blocks */
> > >
> > > void *data; /* chunk data */
> > > --
> > > 2.39.3
> >
>
> Thanks for adding the comment, but would you mind adding
> ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp? Unless that's something we're trying to
> avoid, I think this is a good use case for it both on the pcpu_chunk and
> specifically on base_addr as that's what we're accessing without a lock.
>
Thanks Dennis, I'll send out the updated patch with
____cacheline_aligned_in_smp on base_addr :)
> Thanks,
> Dennis
Regards
Yu
