On 11/18/2013 11:04 AM, Khalid Aziz wrote:
On 11/15/2013 10:47 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hi,
1/3 is a bugfix so it should be applied more urgently. 1/3 is not as
fast as the current upstream code in the hugetlbfs + directio extreme
8GB/sec benchmark (but 3/3 should fill the gap later). The code is
identical to the one I posted in v1 just rebased on upstream and was
developed in collaboration with Khalid who already tested it.
2/3 and 3/3 had very little testing yet, and they're incremental
optimization. 2/3 is minor and most certainly worth applying later.
3/3 instead complicates things a bit and adds more branches to the THP
fast paths, so it should only be applied if the benchmarks of
hugetlbfs + directio show that it is very worthwhile (that has not
been verified yet). If it's not worthwhile 3/3 should be dropped (and
the gap should be filled in some other way if the gap is not caused by
the _mapcount mangling as I guessed). Ideally this should bring even
more performance than current upstream code, as current upstream code
still increased the _mapcount in gup_fast by mistake, while this
eliminates the locked op on the tail page cacheline in gup_fast too
(which is required for correctness too).
Hi Andrea,
I ran directio benchmark and here are the performance numbers (MBytes/sec):
Block size 3.12 3.12+patch 1 3.12+patch 1,2,3
---------- ---- ------------ ----------------
1M 8467 8114 7648
64K 4049 4043 4175
Performance numbers with 64K reads look good but there is further
deterioration with 1M reads.
--
Khalid
Hi Andrea,
I found that a background task running on my test server had influenced
the performance numbers for 1M reads. I cleaned that problem up and
re-ran the test. I am seeing 8456 MB/sec with all three patches applied,
so 1M number is looking good as well.
--
Khalid
--
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>