Re: [RFC] x86: gup_fast() batch limit
From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Wed Jun 24 2009 - 15:55:40 EST
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 15:46 +0200, Brice Goglin wrote:
> Any news about this patch?
Compile tested on x86_64 and ppc64.
---
Implement the batching mentioned in the gup_fast comment.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/powerpc/mm/gup.c | 28 +++++++++++++---------------
arch/x86/mm/gup.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/gup.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/gup.c
index bc400c7..cf535bf 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/mm/gup.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/gup.c
@@ -146,11 +146,13 @@ static int gup_pud_range(pgd_t pgd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
return 1;
}
+#define CHUNK_SIZE (64 * PAGE_SIZE)
+
int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
struct page **pages)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
- unsigned long addr, len, end;
+ unsigned long addr, len, end, chunk;
unsigned long next;
pgd_t *pgdp;
int nr = 0;
@@ -191,16 +193,9 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
}
#endif /* CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
- /*
- * XXX: batch / limit 'nr', to avoid large irq off latency
- * needs some instrumenting to determine the common sizes used by
- * important workloads (eg. DB2), and whether limiting the batch size
- * will decrease performance.
- *
- * It seems like we're in the clear for the moment. Direct-IO is
- * the main guy that batches up lots of get_user_pages, and even
- * they are limited to 64-at-a-time which is not so many.
- */
+again:
+ chunk = min(addr + CHUNK_SIZE, end);
+
/*
* This doesn't prevent pagetable teardown, but does prevent
* the pagetables from being freed on powerpc.
@@ -235,10 +230,10 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
VM_BUG_ON(shift != mmu_psize_defs[get_slice_psize(mm, a)].shift);
ptep = huge_pte_offset(mm, a);
pr_debug(" %016lx: huge ptep %p\n", a, ptep);
- if (!ptep || !gup_huge_pte(ptep, hstate, &a, end, write, pages,
+ if (!ptep || !gup_huge_pte(ptep, hstate, &a, chunk, write, pages,
&nr))
goto slow;
- } while (a != end);
+ } while (a != chunk);
} else
#endif /* CONFIG_HUGETLB_PAGE */
{
@@ -251,15 +246,18 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
#endif
pr_debug(" %016lx: normal pgd %p\n", addr,
(void *)pgd_val(pgd));
- next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
+ next = pgd_addr_end(addr, chunk);
if (pgd_none(pgd))
goto slow;
if (!gup_pud_range(pgd, addr, next, write, pages, &nr))
goto slow;
- } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end);
+ } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != chunk);
}
local_irq_enable();
+ if (addr != end)
+ goto again;
+
VM_BUG_ON(nr != (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
return nr;
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/gup.c b/arch/x86/mm/gup.c
index 71da1bc..9e0552b 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/gup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/gup.c
@@ -219,6 +219,8 @@ static int gup_pud_range(pgd_t pgd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
return 1;
}
+#define CHUNK_SIZE (64 * PAGE_SIZE)
+
/*
* Like get_user_pages_fast() except its IRQ-safe in that it won't fall
* back to the regular GUP.
@@ -227,7 +229,7 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
struct page **pages)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
- unsigned long addr, len, end;
+ unsigned long addr, len, end, chunk;
unsigned long next;
unsigned long flags;
pgd_t *pgdp;
@@ -241,16 +243,9 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
(void __user *)start, len)))
return 0;
- /*
- * XXX: batch / limit 'nr', to avoid large irq off latency
- * needs some instrumenting to determine the common sizes used by
- * important workloads (eg. DB2), and whether limiting the batch size
- * will decrease performance.
- *
- * It seems like we're in the clear for the moment. Direct-IO is
- * the main guy that batches up lots of get_user_pages, and even
- * they are limited to 64-at-a-time which is not so many.
- */
+again:
+ chunk = min(addr + CHUNK_SIZE, end);
+
/*
* This doesn't prevent pagetable teardown, but does prevent
* the pagetables and pages from being freed on x86.
@@ -264,14 +259,17 @@ int __get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
do {
pgd_t pgd = *pgdp;
- next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
+ next = pgd_addr_end(addr, chunk);
if (pgd_none(pgd))
break;
if (!gup_pud_range(pgd, addr, next, write, pages, &nr))
break;
- } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end);
+ } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != chunk);
local_irq_restore(flags);
+ if (addr != end)
+ goto again;
+
return nr;
}
@@ -295,7 +293,7 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
struct page **pages)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
- unsigned long addr, len, end;
+ unsigned long addr, len, end, chunk;
unsigned long next;
pgd_t *pgdp;
int nr = 0;
@@ -313,16 +311,9 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
goto slow_irqon;
#endif
- /*
- * XXX: batch / limit 'nr', to avoid large irq off latency
- * needs some instrumenting to determine the common sizes used by
- * important workloads (eg. DB2), and whether limiting the batch size
- * will decrease performance.
- *
- * It seems like we're in the clear for the moment. Direct-IO is
- * the main guy that batches up lots of get_user_pages, and even
- * they are limited to 64-at-a-time which is not so many.
- */
+again:
+ chunk = min(addr + CHUNK_SIZE, end);
+
/*
* This doesn't prevent pagetable teardown, but does prevent
* the pagetables and pages from being freed on x86.
@@ -336,14 +327,17 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages, int write,
do {
pgd_t pgd = *pgdp;
- next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
+ next = pgd_addr_end(addr, chunk);
if (pgd_none(pgd))
goto slow;
if (!gup_pud_range(pgd, addr, next, write, pages, &nr))
goto slow;
- } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != end);
+ } while (pgdp++, addr = next, addr != chunk);
local_irq_enable();
+ if (addr != end)
+ goto again;
+
VM_BUG_ON(nr != (end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
return nr;
--
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/