On 2024/10/30 11:21, Huang, Ying wrote:
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:On 2024/10/30 9:04, Huang, Ying wrote:David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:On 29.10.24 14:04, Kefeng Wang wrote:That should all be cleaned up ... process_huge_page() likely shouldn'tYes, let's fix the bug firstly,be even consuming "nr_pages".No sure about this part, it uses nr_pages as the end and calculate the 'base'.It should be using folio_nr_pages().But process_huge_page() without an explicit folio argument, I'd like to move the aligned address calculate into the folio_zero_user and copy_user_large_folio(will rename it to folio_copy_user()) in the following cleanup patches, or do it in the fix patches?First, why does folio_zero_user() call process_huge_page() for *a small folio*? Because we like or code to be extra complicated to understand? Or am I missing something important?The folio_zero_user() used for PMD-sized THP and HugeTLB before, and after anon mTHP supported, it is used for order-2~order-PMD-order THP and HugeTLB, so it won't process a small folio if I understand correctly.And unfortunately neither the documentation nor the function name expresses that :( I'm happy to review any patches that improve the situation here :)Actually, could we drop the process_huge_page() totally, from my testcase[1], process_huge_page() is not better than clear/copy page from start to last, and sequential clearing/copying maybe more beneficial to the hardware prefetching, and is there a way to let lkp to test to check the performance, since the process_huge_page() was submitted by Ying, what's your opinion?I don't think that it's a good idea to revert the commit without studying and root causing the issues. I can work together with you on that. If we have solid and well explained data to prove process_huge_page() isn't benefitial, we can revert the commit.Take 'fallocate 20G' as an example， before Performance counter stats for 'taskset -c 10 fallocate -l 20G /mnt/hugetlbfs/test':IIUC, fallocate will zero pages, but will not touch them at all, right? If so, no cache benefit from clearing referenced page last.
Yes, for this case, only clear page.
3,118.94 msec task-clock # 0.999 CPUs utilized 30 context-switches # 0.010 K/sec 1 cpu-migrations # 0.000 K/sec 136 page-faults # 0.044 K/sec 8,092,075,873 cycles # 2.594 GHz (92.82%) 1,624,587,663 instructions # 0.20 insn per cycle (92.83%) 395,341,850 branches # 126.755 M/sec (92.82%) 3,872,302 branch-misses # 0.98% of all branches (92.83%) 1,398,066,701 L1-dcache-loads # 448.251 M/sec (92.82%) 58,124,626 L1-dcache-load-misses # 4.16% of all L1-dcache accesses (92.82%) 1,032,527 LLC-loads # 0.331 M/sec (92.82%) 498,684 LLC-load-misses # 48.30% of all LL-cache accesses (92.84%) 473,689,004 L1-icache-loads # 151.875 M/sec (92.82%) 356,721 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.08% of all L1-icache accesses (92.85%) 1,947,644,987 dTLB-loads # 624.458 M/sec (92.95%) 10,185 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache accesses (92.96%) 474,622,896 iTLB-loads # 152.174 M/sec (92.95%) 94 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache accesses (85.69%) 3.122844830 seconds time elapsed 0.000000000 seconds user 3.107259000 seconds sys and after（clear from start to end） Performance counter stats for 'taskset -c 10 fallocate -l 20G /mnt/hugetlbfs/test': 1,135.53 msec task-clock # 0.999 CPUs utilized 10 context-switches # 0.009 K/sec 1 cpu-migrations # 0.001 K/sec 137 page-faults # 0.121 K/sec 2,946,673,587 cycles # 2.595 GHz (92.67%) 1,620,704,205 instructions # 0.55 insn per cycle (92.61%) 394,595,772 branches # 347.499 M/sec (92.60%) 130,756 branch-misses # 0.03% of all branches (92.84%) 1,396,726,689 L1-dcache-loads # 1230.022 M/sec (92.96%) 338,344 L1-dcache-load-misses # 0.02% of all L1-dcache accesses (92.95%) 111,737 LLC-loads # 0.098 M/sec (92.96%) 67,486 LLC-load-misses # 60.40% of all LL-cache accesses (92.96%) 418,198,663 L1-icache-loads # 368.285 M/sec (92.96%) 173,764 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.04% of all L1-icache accesses (92.96%) 2,203,364,632 dTLB-loads # 1940.385 M/sec (92.96%) 17,195 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache accesses (92.95%) 418,198,365 iTLB-loads # 368.285 M/sec (92.96%) 79 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache accesses (85.34%) 1.137015760 seconds time elapsed 0.000000000 seconds user 1.131266000 seconds sys The IPC improved a lot，less LLC-loads and more L1-dcache-loads， but this depends on the implementation of the microarchitecture.Anyway, we need to avoid (or reduce at least) the pure memory clearing performance. Have you double checked whether process_huge_page() is inlined? Perf-profile result can be used to check this too.
Yes, I'm sure the process_huge_page() is inlined.
When you say from start to end, you mean to use clear_gigantic_page() directly, or change process_huge_page() to clear page from start to end?
Using clear_gigantic_page() and changing process_huge_page() to clear page from start to end are both good for performance when sequential clearing, but no random test so far.
1) Will test some rand test to check the different of performance as David suggested. 2) Hope the LKP to run more tests since it is very useful(more test set and different machines)I'm starting to use LKP to test.
Greet.
