Re: 2.6.0 Huge pages not working as expected

From: Nick Craig-Wood
Date: Sat Dec 27 2003 - 04:03:46 EST


On Fri, Dec 26, 2003 at 12:33:58PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003, Nick Craig-Wood wrote:
> >
> > The results are just about the same - a slight slowdown for
> > hugepages...
>
> I don't think you are really testing the TLB - you are testing the data
> cache.
>
> And the thing is, using huge pages will mean that the pages are 1:1
> mapped, and thus get "perfectly" cache-coloured, while the anonymous mmap
> will give you random placement.

Mmmm, yes.

> And what you are seeing is likely the fact that random placement is
> guaranteed to not have any worst-case behaviour. While perfect
> cache-coloring very much _does_ have worst-case schenarios, and you're
> likely triggering one of them.
>
> In particular, using a pure power-of-two stride means that you are
> limiting your cache to a certain subset of the full result with the
> perfect coloring.
>
> This, btw, is why I don't like page coloring: it does give nicely
> reproducible results, but it does not necessarily improve performance.
> Random placement has a lot of advantages, one of which is a lot smoother
> performance degradation - which I personally think is a good thing.
>
> Try your program with non-power-of-two, and non-page-aligned strides. I
> suspect the results will change (but I suspect that the TLB wins will
> still be pretty much in the noise compared to the actual data cache
> effects).

Yes you are right and I should have thought have that as I know that
FFTs often have a bit of padding on each row to make them a non power
of two to avoid this effect!

Here are the results again with a some non power of two strides run on
a P4. Apart from the variable results the hugetlb ones are always
less than the small page ones.

Memory from /dev/zero
Testing memory at 0x42400000
span = 1, time = 12.103 ms, total = -973807672
span = 2, time = 21.051 ms, total = -973807672
span = 3, time = 28.391 ms, total = -973807672
span = 5, time = 44.004 ms, total = -973807672
span = 7, time = 60.622 ms, total = -973807672
span = 11, time = 96.537 ms, total = -973807672
span = 13, time = 116.335 ms, total = -973807672
span = 17, time = 153.163 ms, total = -973807672
span = 33, time = 276.764 ms, total = -973807672
span = 77, time = 282.419 ms, total = -973807672
span = 119, time = 287.168 ms, total = -973807672
span = 221, time = 298.292 ms, total = -973807672
span = 561, time = 343.215 ms, total = -973807672
span = 963, time = 418.078 ms, total = -973807672
span = 1309, time = 446.026 ms, total = -973807672
span = 2023, time = 253.098 ms, total = -973807672
span = 4335, time = 68.616 ms, total = -973807672

Memory from hugetlbfs
Testing memory at 0x41400000
span = 1, time = 12.059 ms, total = -973807672
span = 2, time = 20.745 ms, total = -973807672
span = 3, time = 28.324 ms, total = -973807672
span = 5, time = 43.683 ms, total = -973807672
span = 7, time = 60.228 ms, total = -973807672
span = 11, time = 95.680 ms, total = -973807672
span = 13, time = 115.695 ms, total = -973807672
span = 17, time = 152.603 ms, total = -973807672
span = 33, time = 275.821 ms, total = -973807672
span = 77, time = 280.759 ms, total = -973807672
span = 119, time = 285.515 ms, total = -973807672
span = 221, time = 295.163 ms, total = -973807672
span = 561, time = 335.941 ms, total = -973807672
span = 963, time = 411.387 ms, total = -973807672
span = 1309, time = 433.168 ms, total = -973807672
span = 2023, time = 119.780 ms, total = -973807672
span = 4335, time = 32.085 ms, total = -973807672

Isn't modern memory management fun ;-)

--
Nick Craig-Wood
ncw1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/