* Shaohua Li <s...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:35:37PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Shaohua Li <s...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Add a few acks and resend this patch.
> > >
> > > We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access
> > > bit,
> > > we could skip tlb flush in X86. The side effect is if the pte is in tlb
> > > and pte
> > > access bit is unset in page table, when cpu access the page again, cpu
> > > will not
> > > set page table pte's access bit. Next time page reclaim will think this
> > > hot
> > > page is yong and reclaim it wrongly, but this doesn't corrupt data.
> > >
> > > And according to intel manual, tlb has less than 1k entries, which covers
> > > < 4M
> > > memory. In today's system, several giga byte memory is normal. After page
> > > reclaim clears pte access bit and before cpu access the page again, it's
> > > quite
> > > unlikely this page's pte is still in TLB. And context swich will flush
> > > tlb too.
> > > The chance skiping tlb flush to impact page reclaim should be very rare.
> > >
> > > Originally (in 2.5 kernel maybe), we didn't do tlb flush after clear
> > > access bit.
> > > Hugh added it to fix some ARM and sparc issues. Since I only change this
> > > for
> > > x86, there should be no risk.
> > >
> > > And in some workloads, TLB flush overhead is very heavy. In my simple
> > > multithread app with a lot of swap to several pcie SSD, removing the tlb
> > > flush
> > > gives about 20% ~ 30% swapout speedup.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <s...@fusionio.com>
> > > Acked-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> > > Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
> > > Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c | 13 ++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Index: linux/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c 2014-03-27 05:22:08.572100549
> > > +0800
> > > +++ linux/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c 2014-03-27 05:46:12.456131121 +0800
> > > @@ -399,13 +399,12 @@ int pmdp_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_
> > > int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
> > > {
> > > - int young;
> > > -
> > > - young = ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
> > > - if (young)
> > > - flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
> > > -
> > > - return young;
> > > + /*
> > > + * In X86, clearing access bit without TLB flush doesn't cause data
> > > + * corruption. Doing this could cause wrong page aging and so hot pages
> > > + * are reclaimed, but the chance should be very rare.
> >
> > So, beyond the spelling mistakes, I guess this explanation should also
> > be a bit more explanatory - how about something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * On x86 CPUs, clearing the accessed bit without a TLB flush
> > * doesn't cause data corruption. [ It could cause incorrect
> > * page aging and the (mistaken) reclaim of hot pages, but the
> > * chance of that should be relatively low. ]
> > *
> > * So as a performance optimization don't flush the TLB when
> > * clearing the accessed bit, it will eventually be flushed by
> > * a context switch or a VM operation anyway. [ In the rare
> > * event of it not getting flushed for a long time the delay
> > * shouldn't really matter because there's no real memory
> > * pressure for swapout to react to. ]
> > */
> >
> > Agreed?
>
> Changed the comments and added ACK of Johannes, so you can pick up directly.
>
> Subject: x86: clearing access bit don't flush tlb
>
> We use access bit to age a page at page reclaim. When clearing pte access bit,
> we could skip tlb flush in X86. The side effect is if the pte is in tlb and
> pte
> access bit is unset in page table, when cpu access the page again, cpu will
> not
> set page table pte's access bit. Next time page reclaim will think this hot
> page is yong and reclaim it wrongly, but this doesn't corrupt data.
>
> And according to intel manual, tlb has less than 1k entries, which covers < 4M
> memory. In today's system, several giga byte memory is normal. After page
> reclaim clears pte access bit and before cpu access the page again, it's quite
> unlikely this page's pte is still in TLB. And context swich will flush tlb
> too.
> The chance skiping tlb flush to impact page reclaim should be very rare.
>
> Originally (in 2.5 kernel maybe), we didn't do tlb flush after clear access
> bit.
> Hugh added it to fix some ARM and sparc issues. Since I only change this for
> x86, there should be no risk.
>
> And in some workloads, TLB flush overhead is very heavy. In my simple
> multithread app with a lot of swap to several pcie SSD, removing the tlb flush
> gives about 20% ~ 30% swapout speedup.
>
> Update comments by Ingo.
I fixed this changelog as well.
> Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <s...@fusionio.com>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgor...@suse.de>
> Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hu...@google.com>
> Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <han...@cmpxchg.org>
> ---
> arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c | 21 ++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> Index: linux/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c 2014-04-07 08:36:02.843221074 +0800
> +++ linux/arch/x86/mm/pgtable.c 2014-04-07 08:37:26.438170140 +0800
> @@ -399,13 +399,20 @@ int pmdp_test_and_clear_young(struct vm_
> int ptep_clear_flush_young(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep)
> {
> - int young;
> -
> - young = ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, address, ptep);
> - if (young)
> - flush_tlb_page(vma, address);
> -
> - return young;
> + /*
> + * On x86 CPUs, clearing the accessed bit without a TLB flush
> + * doesn't cause data corruption. [ It could cause incorrect
> + * page aging and the (mistaken) reclaim of hot pages, but the
> + * chance of that should be relatively low. ]
> + *
> + * So as a performance optimization don't flush the TLB when
> + * clearing the accessed bit, it will eventually be flushed by
> + * a context switch or a VM operation anyway. [ In the rare
> + * event of it not getting flushed for a long time the delay
> + * shouldn't really matter because there's no real memory
> + * pressure for swapout to react to. ]
> + */
There's whitespace damage here - I fixed that up as well.
Please use scripts/checkpatch.pl before submitting patches, to make
sure there are no fixable problems in it.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
