Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] mm/free_pcppages_bulk: prefetch buddy while not holding lock
From: Michal Hocko
Date: Thu Mar 01 2018 - 09:00:59 EST
On Thu 01-03-18 14:28:45, Aaron Lu wrote:
> When a page is freed back to the global pool, its buddy will be checked
> to see if it's possible to do a merge. This requires accessing buddy's
> page structure and that access could take a long time if it's cache cold.
>
> This patch adds a prefetch to the to-be-freed page's buddy outside of
> zone->lock in hope of accessing buddy's page structure later under
> zone->lock will be faster. Since we *always* do buddy merging and check
> an order-0 page's buddy to try to merge it when it goes into the main
> allocator, the cacheline will always come in, i.e. the prefetched data
> will never be unused.
>
> In the meantime, there are two concerns:
> 1 the prefetch could potentially evict existing cachelines, especially
> for L1D cache since it is not huge;
> 2 there is some additional instruction overhead, namely calculating
> buddy pfn twice.
>
> For 1, it's hard to say, this microbenchmark though shows good result but
> the actual benefit of this patch will be workload/CPU dependant;
> For 2, since the calculation is a XOR on two local variables, it's expected
> in many cases that cycles spent will be offset by reduced memory latency
> later. This is especially true for NUMA machines where multiple CPUs are
> contending on zone->lock and the most time consuming part under zone->lock
> is the wait of 'struct page' cacheline of the to-be-freed pages and their
> buddies.
>
> Test with will-it-scale/page_fault1 full load:
>
> kernel Broadwell(2S) Skylake(2S) Broadwell(4S) Skylake(4S)
> v4.16-rc2+ 9034215 7971818 13667135 15677465
> patch2/3 9536374 +5.6% 8314710 +4.3% 14070408 +3.0% 16675866 +6.4%
> this patch 10338868 +8.4% 8544477 +2.8% 14839808 +5.5% 17155464 +2.9%
> Note: this patch's performance improvement percent is against patch2/3.
I am really surprised that this has such a big impact. Is this a win on
other architectures as well?
> [changelog stole from Dave Hansen and Mel Gorman's comments]
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/24/551
Please use http://lkml.kernel.org/r/<msg-id> for references because
lkml.org is quite unstable. It would be
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/148a42d8-8306-2f2f-7f7c-86bc118f8ccd@xxxxxxxxx
here.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs