lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm: cache largest vma

* Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 12:47 -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 13:04 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:12 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com> wrote:
> > > > > 2) Oracle Data mining (4K pages)
> > > > > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> > > > > | mmap_cache type | hit-rate | cycles (billion) | stddev |
> > > > > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> > > > > | no mmap_cache | - | 63.35 | 0.20207 |
> > > > > | current mmap_cache | 65.66% | 19.55 | 0.35019 |
> > > > > | mmap_cache+largest VMA | 71.53% | 15.84 | 0.26764 |
> > > > > | 4 element hash table | 70.75% | 15.90 | 0.25586 |
> > > > > | per-thread mmap_cache | 86.42% | 11.57 | 0.29462 |
> > > > > +------------------------+----------+------------------+---------+
> > > > >
> > > > > This workload sure makes the point of how much we can benefit of
> > > > > caching the vma, otherwise find_vma() can cost more than 220% extra
> > > > > cycles. We clearly win here by having a per-thread cache instead of
> > > > > per address space. I also tried the same workload with 2Mb hugepages
> > > > > and the results are much more closer to the kernel build, but with the
> > > > > per-thread vma still winning over the rest of the alternatives.
> > > > >
> > > > > All in all I think that we should probably have a per-thread vma
> > > > > cache. Please let me know if there is some other workload you'd like
> > > > > me to try out. If folks agree then I can cleanup the patch and send it
> > > > > out.
> > > >
> > > > Per thread cache sounds interesting - with per-mm caches there is a real
> > > > risk that some modern threaded apps pay the cost of cache updates
> > > > without seeing much of the benefit. However, how do you cheaply handle
> > > > invalidations for the per thread cache ?
> > >
> > > The cheapest way to handle that would be to have a generation counter for
> > > the mm and to couple cache validity to a specific value of that.
> > > 'Invalidation' is then the free side effect of bumping the generation
> > > counter when a vma is removed/moved.
>
> Wouldn't this approach make us invalidate all vmas even when we
> just want to do it for one? [...]

Yes. If it's implemented as some sort of small, vma-size-weighted
LRU, then all these 'different' caches go away and there's just
this single LRU cache with a handful of entries cached.

This cache is then invalidated on munmap() et al. Which should be
fine, mmap()/munmap() is a slowpath relative to find_vma().

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-13 19:21    [W:0.077 / U:0.752 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site