Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/57] Boot-time page size selection for arm64

[David Hildenbrand]

> Performance Testing
> ===================
>
> I've run some limited performance benchmarks:
>
> First, a real-world benchmark that causes a lot of page table manipulation (and
> therefore we would expect to see regression here if we are going to see it
> anywhere); kernel compilation. It barely registers a change. Values are times,
> so smaller is better. All relative to base-4k:
>
> |             |    kern |    kern |    user |    user |    real |    real |
> | config      |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |    mean |   stdev |
> |-------------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|---------|
> | base-4k     |    0.0% |    1.1% |    0.0% |    0.3% |    0.0% |    0.3% |
> | compile-4k  |   -0.2% |    1.1% |   -0.2% |    0.3% |   -0.1% |    0.3% |
> | boot-4k     |    0.1% |    1.0% |   -0.3% |    0.2% |   -0.2% |    0.2% |
>
> The Speedometer JavaScript benchmark also shows no change. Values are runs per
> min, so bigger is better. All relative to base-4k:
>
> | config      |    mean |   stdev |
> |-------------|---------|---------|
> | base-4k     |    0.0% |    0.8% |
> | compile-4k  |    0.4% |    0.8% |
> | boot-4k     |    0.0% |    0.9% |
>
> Finally, I've run some microbenchmarks known to stress page table manipulations
> (originally from David Hildenbrand). The fork test maps/allocs 1G of anon
> memory, then measures the cost of fork(). The munmap test maps/allocs 1G of anon
> memory then measures the cost of munmap()ing it. The fork test is known to be
> extremely sensitive to any changes that cause instructions to be aligned
> differently in cachelines. When using this test for other changes, I've seen
> double digit regressions for the slightest thing, so 12% regression on this test
> is actually fairly good. This likely represents the extreme worst case for
> regressions that will be observed across other microbenchmarks (famous last
> words). Values are times, so smaller is better. All relative to base-4k:

... and here I am, worrying about much smaller degradation in these 
micro-benchmark ;) You're right, these are pure micro-benchmarks, and 
while 12% does sound like "much", even stupid compiler code movement can 
result in such changes in the fork() micro benchmark.

So I think this is just fine, and actually "surprisingly" small. And, 
there is even a way to statically compile a page size and not worry 
about that at all.

As discussed ahead of times, I consider this change very valuable. In 
RHEL, the biggest issue is actually the test matrix, that cannot really 
be reduced significantly ... but it will make shipping/packaging easier.

CCing Don, who did the separate 64k RHEL flavor kernel.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb