On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 06:37:47PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > There might be some other case where the new "just change the
> > protection" doesn't do the "oh, but it the protection didn't change,
> > don't bother flushing". I don't see it.
>
> Hmm. I wonder.. In change_pte_range(), we just unconditionally change
> the protection bits.
>
> But the old numa code used to do
>
> if (!pte_numa(oldpte)) {
> ptep_set_numa(mm, addr, pte);
>
> so it would actually avoid the pte update if a numa-prot page was
> marked numa-prot again.
>
> But are those migrate-page calls really common enough to make these
> things happen often enough on the same pages for this all to matter?
It's looking like that's a possibility. I am running a fake-numa=4
config on this test VM so it's got 4 nodes of 4p/4GB RAM each.
both kernels are running through the same page fault path and that
is straight through migrate_pages().
3.19:
13.70% 0.01% [kernel] [k] native_flush_tlb_others
- native_flush_tlb_others
- 98.58% flush_tlb_page
ptep_clear_flush
try_to_unmap_one
rmap_walk
try_to_unmap
migrate_pages
migrate_misplaced_page
- handle_mm_fault
- 96.88% __do_page_fault
trace_do_page_fault
do_async_page_fault
+ async_page_fault
+ 3.12% __get_user_pages
+ 1.40% flush_tlb_mm_range
4.0-rc1:
- 67.12% 0.04% [kernel] [k] native_flush_tlb_others
- native_flush_tlb_others
- 99.80% flush_tlb_page
ptep_clear_flush
try_to_unmap_one
rmap_walk
try_to_unmap
migrate_pages
migrate_misplaced_page
- handle_mm_fault
- 99.50% __do_page_fault
trace_do_page_fault
do_async_page_fault
- async_page_fault
Same call chain, just a lot more CPU used further down the stack.
> Odd.
>
> So it would be good if your profiles just show "there's suddenly a
> *lot* more calls to flush_tlb_page() from XYZ" and the culprit is
> obvious that way..
Ok, I did a simple 'perf stat -e tlb:tlb_flush -a -r 6 sleep 10' to
count all the tlb flush events from the kernel. I then pulled the
full events for a 30s period to get a sampling of the reason
associated with each flush event.
4.0-rc1:
Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs):
2,190,503 tlb:tlb_flush ( +- 8.30% )
10.001970663 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% )
The reason breakdown:
81% TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN
19% TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH
3.19:
Performance counter stats for 'system wide' (6 runs):
467,151 tlb:tlb_flush ( +- 25.50% )
10.002021491 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.00% )
The reason breakdown:
6% TLB_REMOTE_SHOOTDOWN
94% TLB_FLUSH_ON_TASK_SWITCH
The difference would appear to be the number of remote TLB
shootdowns that are occurring from otherwise identical page fault
paths.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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>