Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression

[Huang\, Ying]

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From perf profile, the time spent in page_fault and its children
>> functions are almost same (7.85% vs 7.81%).  So the time spent in page
>> fault and page table operation itself doesn't changed much.  So, you
>> mean CPU may be slower to load the page table entry to TLB if accessed
>> bit is not set?
>
> So the CPU does take a microfault internally when it needs to set the
> accessed/dirty bit. It's not architecturally visible, but you can see
> it when you do timing loops.
>
> I've timed it at over a thousand cycles on at least some CPU's, but
> that's still peanuts compared to a real page fault. It shouldn't be
> *that* noticeable, ie no way it's a 6% regression on its own.

I done some simple counting, and found that about 3.15e9 PTE are set to
old during the test after the commit.  This may interpret the user_time
increase as below, because these accessed bit microfault is accounted as
user time.

    387.66 .  0%      +5.4%     408.49 .  0%  unixbench.time.user_time

I also make a one line debug patch as below on top of the commit to set
the PTE to young unconditionally, which recover the regression.

modified   mm/filemap.c
@@ -2193,7 +2193,7 @@ repeat:
 		if (file->f_ra.mmap_miss > 0)
 			file->f_ra.mmap_miss--;
 		addr = address + (page->index - vmf->pgoff) * PAGE_SIZE;
-		do_set_pte(vma, addr, page, pte, false, false, true);
+		do_set_pte(vma, addr, page, pte, false, false, false);
 		unlock_page(page);
 		atomic64_inc(&old_pte_count);
 		goto next;

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying