Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-28 Thread Andrea Arcangeli
Hi everyone, On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:46:59PM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > This patch implements functionality to allow processes to disable the use of > transparent hugepages through the prctl syscall. > > We've determined that some jobs perform significantly better with thp > disabled, > an

Re: [PATCH 0/8] Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
> This 321.equake_l thing is not public, right? Do you have anything > that > is public that shows the same problem? The quake test comes from the SPEC OMP benchmarks. While I believe this suite is available to anybody, I don't think it's free. I was given the test by our benchmarking team, I'll

Re: [PATCH 0/8] Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-16 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:33:56AM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > This first set of tests was run on the latest community kernel, with the > vclear patches: > > Kernel string: Kernel 3.11.0-rc5-medusa-00021-g1a15a96-dirty > harp31-sys:/home/estes04/athorlton/Testing/progs/thp_benchmarks/321.equake

[PATCH 0/8] Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-16 Thread Alex Thorlton
Here are the results from one of the benchmarks that performs particularly poorly when thp is enabled. Unfortunately the vclear patches don't seem to provide a performance boost. I've attached the patches that include the changes I had to make to get the vclear patches applied to the latest kerne

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-05 Thread Alex Thorlton
> Please try it with the vclear patches. Thanks, Andi. I'll give that a shot and see if it makes any difference. - Alex -- 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/

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-04 Thread Andi Kleen
Alex Thorlton writes: >> What kind of workloads are you talking about? > > Our benchmarking team has a list of several of the SPEC OMP benchmarks > that perform significantly better when THP is disabled. I tried to get > the list but one of our servers is acting up and I can't get to it > right n

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-04 Thread Rasmus Villemoes
Alex Thorlton writes: > This patch implements functionality to allow processes to disable the use of > transparent hugepages through the prctl syscall. A few comments: Is there a reason it shouldn't be possible for a process to un-disable/reenable thp? > +static inline int transparent_hugep

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-04 Thread Oleg Nesterov
On 08/03, Kees Cook wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > > >> And I think thp_disabled should be reset to 0 on exec. > > > > The main purpose for this getting carried down from the parent process > > is that we'd like to be able to have a userland program set this fl

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-03 Thread Kees Cook
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Alex Thorlton wrote: >> What kind of workloads are you talking about? > > Our benchmarking team has a list of several of the SPEC OMP benchmarks > that perform significantly better when THP is disabled. I tried to get > the list but one of our servers is acting up a

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Kirill A. Shutemov
Alex Thorlton wrote: > > What kind of workloads are you talking about? > > Our benchmarking team has a list of several of the SPEC OMP benchmarks > that perform significantly better when THP is disabled. I tried to get > the list but one of our servers is acting up and I can't get to it > right no

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Alex Thorlton
> What kind of workloads are you talking about? Our benchmarking team has a list of several of the SPEC OMP benchmarks that perform significantly better when THP is disabled. I tried to get the list but one of our servers is acting up and I can't get to it right now :/ > What's wrong with madvise

RE: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Kirill A. Shutemov
Alex Thorlton wrote: > This patch implements functionality to allow processes to disable the use of > transparent hugepages through the prctl syscall. > > We've determined that some jobs perform significantly better with thp > disabled, > and we need a way to control thp on a per-process basis, w

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Alex Thorlton
> Instead of blowing a whole int on this bool, we could add it > to the bitfield a few pages up where we have other prctl things like.. > > unsigned no_new_privs:1; Definitely a better way to go. I'll tweak that and float another version of the patch. Thanks for the input, Dave! -- To uns

Re: [PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Dave Jones
On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 02:46:59PM -0500, Alex Thorlton wrote: > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h > index 50d04b9..f084c76 100644 > --- a/include/linux/sched.h > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h > @@ -1406,6 +1406,9 @@ struct task_struct { > unsigned intsequenti

[PATCH] Add per-process flag to control thp

2013-08-02 Thread Alex Thorlton
This patch implements functionality to allow processes to disable the use of transparent hugepages through the prctl syscall. We've determined that some jobs perform significantly better with thp disabled, and we need a way to control thp on a per-process basis, without relying on madvise. --- i