On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 7:00 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 04:14:16AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > Suren, what would you think to this? > > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c > > index 6e2fe960473d..e495adcbe968 100644 > > --- a/mm/memory.c > > +++ b/mm/memory.c > > @@ -5821,15 +5821,6 @@ struct vm_area_struct *lock_vma_under_rcu(struct mm_struct *mm, > > if (!vma_start_read(vma)) > > goto inval; > > > > - /* > > - * find_mergeable_anon_vma uses adjacent vmas which are not locked. > > - * This check must happen after vma_start_read(); otherwise, a > > - * concurrent mremap() with MREMAP_DONTUNMAP could dissociate the VMA > > - * from its anon_vma. > > - */ > > - if (unlikely(vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !vma->anon_vma)) > > - goto inval_end_read; > > - > > /* Check since vm_start/vm_end might change before we lock the VMA */ > > if (unlikely(address < vma->vm_start || address >= vma->vm_end)) > > goto inval_end_read; > > > > That takes a few insns out of the page fault path (good!) at the cost > > of one extra trip around the fault handler for the first fault on an > > anon vma. It makes the file & anon paths more similar to each other > > (good!) > > > > We'd need some data to be sure it's really a win, but less code is > > always good. > > Intel's 0day got back to me with data and it's ridiculously good. > Headline figure: over 3x throughput improvement with vm-scalability > https://lore.kernel.org/all/202404261055.c5e24608-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/ > > I can't see why it's that good. It shouldn't be that good. I'm > seeing big numbers here: > > 4366 ą 2% +565.6% 29061 perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses > > and the code being deleted is only checking vma->vm_ops and > vma->anon_vma. Surely that cache line is referenced so frequently > during pagefault that deleting a reference here will make no difference > at all? That indeed looks overly good. Sorry, I didn't have a chance to run the benchmarks on my side yet because of the ongoing Android bootcamp this week. > > We've clearly got an inlining change. viz: > > 72.57 -72.6 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access > 73.28 -72.6 0.70 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access > 72.55 -72.5 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access > 69.93 -69.9 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access > 69.12 -69.1 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault > 68.78 -68.8 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault > 65.78 -65.8 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irq.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma.do_user_addr_fault > 65.43 -65.4 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irq.rwsem_down_read_slowpath.down_read_killable.lock_mm_and_find_vma > > 11.22 +86.5 97.68 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 11.14 +86.5 97.66 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64 > 3.17 ą 2% +94.0 97.12 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.osq_lock.rwsem_optimistic_spin.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff > 3.45 ą 2% +94.1 97.59 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rwsem_optimistic_spin.rwsem_down_write_slowpath.down_write_killable.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff > 0.00 +98.2 98.15 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.vm_mmap_pgoff.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +98.2 98.16 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ksys_mmap_pgoff.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > > so maybe the compiler has been able to eliminate some loads from > contended cachelines? > > 703147 -87.6% 87147 ą 2% perf-stat.ps.context-switches > 663.67 ą 5% +7551.9% 50783 vm-scalability.time.involuntary_context_switches > 1.105e+08 -86.7% 14697764 ą 2% vm-scalability.time.voluntary_context_switches > > indicates to me that we're taking the mmap rwsem far less often (those > would be accounted as voluntary context switches). > > So maybe the cache miss reduction is a consequence of just running for > longer before being preempted. > > I still don't understand why we have to take the mmap_sem less often. > Is there perhaps a VMA for which we have a NULL vm_ops, but don't set > an anon_vma on a page fault? I think the only path in either do_anonymous_page() or do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page() that skips calling anon_vma_prepare() is the "Use the zero-page for reads" here: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/mm/memory.c#L4265. I didn't look into this particular benchmark yet but will try it out once I have some time to benchmark your change. >
