Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 14 7月, 2016 1 次提交
    • P
      x86/mm: Audit and remove any unnecessary uses of module.h · 4b599fed
      由 Paul Gortmaker 提交于 
      Historically a lot of these existed because we did not have
a distinction between what was modular code and what was providing
support to modules via EXPORT_SYMBOL and friends.  That changed
when we forked out support for the latter into the export.h file.

This means we should be able to reduce the usage of module.h
in code that is obj-y Makefile or bool Kconfig.  The advantage
in doing so is that module.h itself sources about 15 other headers;
adding significantly to what we feed cpp, and it can obscure what
headers we are effectively using.

Since module.h was the source for init.h (for __init) and for
export.h (for EXPORT_SYMBOL) we consider each obj-y/bool instance
for the presence of either and replace accordingly where needed.

Note that some bool/obj-y instances remain since module.h is
the header for some exception table entry stuff, and for things
like __init_or_module (code that is tossed when MODULES=n).
Signed-off-by: NPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160714001901.31603-3-paul.gortmaker@windriver.comSigned-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      4b599fed
  3. 28 4月, 2016 3 次提交
  5. 02 4月, 2016 2 次提交
  7. 11 1月, 2016 1 次提交
    • A
      x86/mm: Add barriers and document switch_mm()-vs-flush synchronization · 71b3c126
      由 Andy Lutomirski 提交于 
      When switch_mm() activates a new PGD, it also sets a bit that
tells other CPUs that the PGD is in use so that TLB flush IPIs
will be sent.  In order for that to work correctly, the bit
needs to be visible prior to loading the PGD and therefore
starting to fill the local TLB.

Document all the barriers that make this work correctly and add
a couple that were missing.
Signed-off-by: NAndy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
      71b3c126
  9. 05 9月, 2015 1 次提交
    • M
      x86, mm: trace when an IPI is about to be sent · 5b74283a
      由 Mel Gorman 提交于 
      When unmapping pages it is necessary to flush the TLB.  If that page was
accessed by another CPU then an IPI is used to flush the remote CPU.  That
is a lot of IPIs if kswapd is scanning and unmapping >100K pages per
second.

There already is a window between when a page is unmapped and when it is
TLB flushed.  This series increases the window so multiple pages can be
flushed using a single IPI.  This should be safe or the kernel is hosed
already.

Patch 1 simply made the rest of the series easier to write as ftrace
        could identify all the senders of TLB flush IPIS.

Patch 2 tracks what CPUs potentially map a PFN and then sends an IPI
        to flush the entire TLB.

Patch 3 tracks when there potentially are writable TLB entries that
        need to be batched differently

Patch 4 increases SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX to further batch flushes

The performance impact is documented in the changelogs but in the optimistic
case on a 4-socket machine the full series reduces interrupts from 900K
interrupts/second to 60K interrupts/second.

This patch (of 4):

It is easy to trace when an IPI is received to flush a TLB but harder to
detect what event sent it.  This patch makes it easy to identify the
source of IPIs being transmitted for TLB flushes on x86.
Signed-off-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Acked-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      5b74283a
  11. 21 7月, 2015 1 次提交
  13. 04 2月, 2015 1 次提交
  15. 10 8月, 2014 1 次提交
  17. 08 8月, 2014 1 次提交
  19. 31 7月, 2014 7 次提交
    • D
      x86/mm: Set TLB flush tunable to sane value (33) · a5102476
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      This has been run through Intel's LKP tests across a wide range
of modern sytems and workloads and it wasn't shown to make a
measurable performance difference positive or negative.

Now that we have some shiny new tracepoints, we can actually
figure out what the heck is going on.

During a kernel compile, 60% of the flush_tlb_mm_range() calls
are for a single page.  It breaks down like this:

 size   percent  percent<=
  V        V        V
GLOBAL:   2.20%   2.20% avg cycles:  2283
     1:  56.92%  59.12% avg cycles:  1276
     2:  13.78%  72.90% avg cycles:  1505
     3:   8.26%  81.16% avg cycles:  1880
     4:   7.41%  88.58% avg cycles:  2447
     5:   1.73%  90.31% avg cycles:  2358
     6:   1.32%  91.63% avg cycles:  2563
     7:   1.14%  92.77% avg cycles:  2862
     8:   0.62%  93.39% avg cycles:  3542
     9:   0.08%  93.47% avg cycles:  3289
    10:   0.43%  93.90% avg cycles:  3570
    11:   0.20%  94.10% avg cycles:  3767
    12:   0.08%  94.18% avg cycles:  3996
    13:   0.03%  94.20% avg cycles:  4077
    14:   0.02%  94.23% avg cycles:  4836
    15:   0.04%  94.26% avg cycles:  5699
    16:   0.06%  94.32% avg cycles:  5041
    17:   0.57%  94.89% avg cycles:  5473
    18:   0.02%  94.91% avg cycles:  5396
    19:   0.03%  94.95% avg cycles:  5296
    20:   0.02%  94.96% avg cycles:  6749
    21:   0.18%  95.14% avg cycles:  6225
    22:   0.01%  95.15% avg cycles:  6393
    23:   0.01%  95.16% avg cycles:  6861
    24:   0.12%  95.28% avg cycles:  6912
    25:   0.05%  95.32% avg cycles:  7190
    26:   0.01%  95.33% avg cycles:  7793
    27:   0.01%  95.34% avg cycles:  7833
    28:   0.01%  95.35% avg cycles:  8253
    29:   0.08%  95.42% avg cycles:  8024
    30:   0.03%  95.45% avg cycles:  9670
    31:   0.01%  95.46% avg cycles:  8949
    32:   0.01%  95.46% avg cycles:  9350
    33:   3.11%  98.57% avg cycles:  8534
    34:   0.02%  98.60% avg cycles: 10977
    35:   0.02%  98.62% avg cycles: 11400

We get in to dimishing returns pretty quickly.  On pre-IvyBridge
CPUs, we used to set the limit at 8 pages, and it was set at 128
on IvyBrige.  That 128 number looks pretty silly considering that
less than 0.5% of the flushes are that large.

The previous code tried to size this number based on the size of
the TLB.  Good idea, but it's error-prone, needs maintenance
(which it didn't get up to now), and probably would not matter in
practice much.

Settting it to 33 means that we cover the mallopt
M_TRIM_THRESHOLD, which is the most universally common size to do
flushes.

That's the short version.  Here's the long one for why I chose 33:

1. These numbers have a constant bias in the timestamps from the
   tracing.  Probably counts for a couple hundred cycles in each of
   these tests, but it should be fairly _even_ across all of them.
   The smallest delta between the tracepoints I have ever seen is
   335 cycles.  This is one reason the cycles/page cost goes down in
   general as the flushes get larger.  The true cost is nearer to
   100 cycles.
2. A full flush is more expensive than a single invlpg, but not
   by much (single percentages).
3. A dtlb miss is 17.1ns (~45 cycles) and a itlb miss is 13.0ns
   (~34 cycles).  At those rates, refilling the 512-entry dTLB takes
   22,000 cycles.
4. 22,000 cycles is approximately the equivalent of doing 85
   invlpg operations.  But, the odds are that the TLB can
   actually be filled up faster than that because TLB misses that
   are close in time also tend to leverage the same caches.
6. ~98% of flushes are <=33 pages.  There are a lot of flushes of
   33 pages, probably because libc's M_TRIM_THRESHOLD is set to
   128k (32 pages)
7. I've found no consistent data to support changing the IvyBridge
   vs. SandyBridge tunable by a factor of 16

I used the performance counters on this hardware (IvyBridge i5-3320M)
to figure out the tlb miss costs:

ocperf.py stat -e dtlb_load_misses.walk_duration,dtlb_load_misses.walk_completed,dtlb_store_misses.walk_duration,dtlb_store_misses.walk_completed,itlb_misses.walk_duration,itlb_misses.walk_completed,itlb.itlb_flush

     7,720,030,970      dtlb_load_misses_walk_duration                                    [57.13%]
       169,856,353      dtlb_load_misses_walk_completed                                    [57.15%]
       708,832,859      dtlb_store_misses_walk_duration                                    [57.17%]
        19,346,823      dtlb_store_misses_walk_completed                                    [57.17%]
     2,779,687,402      itlb_misses_walk_duration                                    [57.15%]
        82,241,148      itlb_misses_walk_completed                                    [57.13%]
           770,717      itlb_itlb_flush                                              [57.11%]

Show that a dtlb miss is 17.1ns (~45 cycles) and a itlb miss is 13.0ns
(~34 cycles).  At those rates, refilling the 512-entry dTLB takes
22,000 cycles.  On a SandyBridge system with more cores and larger
caches, those are dtlb=13.4ns and itlb=9.5ns.

cat perf.stat.txt | perl -pe 's/,//g'
	| awk '/itlb_misses_walk_duration/ { icyc+=$1 }
		/itlb_misses_walk_completed/ { imiss+=$1 }
		/dtlb_.*_walk_duration/ { dcyc+=$1 }
		/dtlb_.*.*completed/ { dmiss+=$1 }
		END {print "itlb cyc/miss: ", icyc/imiss, " dtlb cyc/miss: ", dcyc/dmiss, "   -----    ", icyc,imiss, dcyc,dmiss }

On Westmere CPUs, the counters to use are: itlb_flush,itlb_misses.walk_cycles,itlb_misses.any,dtlb_misses.walk_cycles,dtlb_misses.any

The assumptions that this code went in under:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/12/119 say that a flush and a refill are
about 100ns.  Being generous, that is over by a factor of 6 on the
refill side, although it is fairly close on the cost of an invlpg.
An increase of a single invlpg operation seems to lengthen the flush
range operation by about 200 cycles.  Here is one example of the data
collected for flushing 10 and 11 pages (full data are below):

    10:   0.43%  93.90% avg cycles:  3570 cycles/page:  357 samples: 4714
    11:   0.20%  94.10% avg cycles:  3767 cycles/page:  342 samples: 2145

How to generate this table:

	echo 10000 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/buffer_size_kb
	echo x86-tsc > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_clock
	echo 'reason != 0' > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/tlb/tlb_flush/filter
	echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/tlb/tlb_flush/enable

Pipe the trace output in to this script:

	http://sr71.net/~dave/intel/201402-tlb/trace-time-diff-process.pl.txt

Note that these data were gathered with the invlpg threshold set to
150 pages.  Only data points with >=50 of samples were printed:

Flush    % of     %<=
in       flush    this
pages      es     size
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -1:   2.20%   2.20% avg cycles:  2283 cycles/page: xxxx samples: 23960
     1:  56.92%  59.12% avg cycles:  1276 cycles/page: 1276 samples: 620895
     2:  13.78%  72.90% avg cycles:  1505 cycles/page:  752 samples: 150335
     3:   8.26%  81.16% avg cycles:  1880 cycles/page:  626 samples: 90131
     4:   7.41%  88.58% avg cycles:  2447 cycles/page:  611 samples: 80877
     5:   1.73%  90.31% avg cycles:  2358 cycles/page:  471 samples: 18885
     6:   1.32%  91.63% avg cycles:  2563 cycles/page:  427 samples: 14397
     7:   1.14%  92.77% avg cycles:  2862 cycles/page:  408 samples: 12441
     8:   0.62%  93.39% avg cycles:  3542 cycles/page:  442 samples: 6721
     9:   0.08%  93.47% avg cycles:  3289 cycles/page:  365 samples: 917
    10:   0.43%  93.90% avg cycles:  3570 cycles/page:  357 samples: 4714
    11:   0.20%  94.10% avg cycles:  3767 cycles/page:  342 samples: 2145
    12:   0.08%  94.18% avg cycles:  3996 cycles/page:  333 samples: 864
    13:   0.03%  94.20% avg cycles:  4077 cycles/page:  313 samples: 289
    14:   0.02%  94.23% avg cycles:  4836 cycles/page:  345 samples: 236
    15:   0.04%  94.26% avg cycles:  5699 cycles/page:  379 samples: 390
    16:   0.06%  94.32% avg cycles:  5041 cycles/page:  315 samples: 643
    17:   0.57%  94.89% avg cycles:  5473 cycles/page:  321 samples: 6229
    18:   0.02%  94.91% avg cycles:  5396 cycles/page:  299 samples: 224
    19:   0.03%  94.95% avg cycles:  5296 cycles/page:  278 samples: 367
    20:   0.02%  94.96% avg cycles:  6749 cycles/page:  337 samples: 185
    21:   0.18%  95.14% avg cycles:  6225 cycles/page:  296 samples: 1964
    22:   0.01%  95.15% avg cycles:  6393 cycles/page:  290 samples: 83
    23:   0.01%  95.16% avg cycles:  6861 cycles/page:  298 samples: 61
    24:   0.12%  95.28% avg cycles:  6912 cycles/page:  288 samples: 1307
    25:   0.05%  95.32% avg cycles:  7190 cycles/page:  287 samples: 533
    26:   0.01%  95.33% avg cycles:  7793 cycles/page:  299 samples: 94
    27:   0.01%  95.34% avg cycles:  7833 cycles/page:  290 samples: 66
    28:   0.01%  95.35% avg cycles:  8253 cycles/page:  294 samples: 73
    29:   0.08%  95.42% avg cycles:  8024 cycles/page:  276 samples: 846
    30:   0.03%  95.45% avg cycles:  9670 cycles/page:  322 samples: 296
    31:   0.01%  95.46% avg cycles:  8949 cycles/page:  288 samples: 79
    32:   0.01%  95.46% avg cycles:  9350 cycles/page:  292 samples: 60
    33:   3.11%  98.57% avg cycles:  8534 cycles/page:  258 samples: 33936
    34:   0.02%  98.60% avg cycles: 10977 cycles/page:  322 samples: 268
    35:   0.02%  98.62% avg cycles: 11400 cycles/page:  325 samples: 177
    36:   0.01%  98.63% avg cycles: 11504 cycles/page:  319 samples: 161
    37:   0.02%  98.65% avg cycles: 11596 cycles/page:  313 samples: 182
    38:   0.02%  98.66% avg cycles: 11850 cycles/page:  311 samples: 195
    39:   0.01%  98.68% avg cycles: 12158 cycles/page:  311 samples: 128
    40:   0.01%  98.68% avg cycles: 11626 cycles/page:  290 samples: 78
    41:   0.04%  98.73% avg cycles: 11435 cycles/page:  278 samples: 477
    42:   0.01%  98.73% avg cycles: 12571 cycles/page:  299 samples: 74
    43:   0.01%  98.74% avg cycles: 12562 cycles/page:  292 samples: 78
    44:   0.01%  98.75% avg cycles: 12991 cycles/page:  295 samples: 108
    45:   0.01%  98.76% avg cycles: 13169 cycles/page:  292 samples: 78
    46:   0.02%  98.78% avg cycles: 12891 cycles/page:  280 samples: 261
    47:   0.01%  98.79% avg cycles: 13099 cycles/page:  278 samples: 67
    48:   0.01%  98.80% avg cycles: 13851 cycles/page:  288 samples: 77
    49:   0.01%  98.80% avg cycles: 13749 cycles/page:  280 samples: 66
    50:   0.01%  98.81% avg cycles: 13949 cycles/page:  278 samples: 73
    52:   0.00%  98.82% avg cycles: 14243 cycles/page:  273 samples: 52
    54:   0.01%  98.83% avg cycles: 15312 cycles/page:  283 samples: 87
    55:   0.01%  98.84% avg cycles: 15197 cycles/page:  276 samples: 109
    56:   0.02%  98.86% avg cycles: 15234 cycles/page:  272 samples: 208
    57:   0.00%  98.86% avg cycles: 14888 cycles/page:  261 samples: 53
    58:   0.01%  98.87% avg cycles: 15037 cycles/page:  259 samples: 59
    59:   0.01%  98.87% avg cycles: 15752 cycles/page:  266 samples: 63
    62:   0.00%  98.89% avg cycles: 16222 cycles/page:  261 samples: 54
    64:   0.02%  98.91% avg cycles: 17179 cycles/page:  268 samples: 248
    65:   0.12%  99.03% avg cycles: 18762 cycles/page:  288 samples: 1324
    85:   0.00%  99.10% avg cycles: 21649 cycles/page:  254 samples: 50
   127:   0.01%  99.18% avg cycles: 32397 cycles/page:  255 samples: 75
   128:   0.13%  99.31% avg cycles: 31711 cycles/page:  247 samples: 1466
   129:   0.18%  99.49% avg cycles: 33017 cycles/page:  255 samples: 1927
   181:   0.33%  99.84% avg cycles:  2489 cycles/page:   13 samples: 3547
   256:   0.05%  99.91% avg cycles:  2305 cycles/page:    9 samples: 550
   512:   0.03%  99.95% avg cycles:  2133 cycles/page:    4 samples: 304
  1512:   0.01%  99.99% avg cycles:  3038 cycles/page:    2 samples: 65

Here are the tlb counters during a 10-second slice of a kernel compile
for a SandyBridge system.  It's better than IvyBridge, but probably
due to the larger caches since this was one of the 'X' extreme parts.

    10,873,007,282      dtlb_load_misses_walk_duration
       250,711,333      dtlb_load_misses_walk_completed
     1,212,395,865      dtlb_store_misses_walk_duration
        31,615,772      dtlb_store_misses_walk_completed
     5,091,010,274      itlb_misses_walk_duration
       163,193,511      itlb_misses_walk_completed
         1,321,980      itlb_itlb_flush

      10.008045158 seconds time elapsed

# cat perf.stat.1392743721.txt | perl -pe 's/,//g' | awk '/itlb_misses_walk_duration/ { icyc+=$1 } /itlb_misses_walk_completed/ { imiss+=$1 } /dtlb_.*_walk_duration/ { dcyc+=$1 } /dtlb_.*.*completed/ { dmiss+=$1 } END {print "itlb cyc/miss: ", icyc/imiss/3.3, " dtlb cyc/miss: ", dcyc/dmiss/3.3, "   -----    ", icyc,imiss, dcyc,dmiss }'
itlb ns/miss:  9.45338  dtlb ns/miss:  12.9716
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154103.10C1115E@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      a5102476
    • D
      x86/mm: New tunable for single vs full TLB flush · 2d040a1c
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      Most of the logic here is in the documentation file.  Please take
a look at it.

I know we've come full-circle here back to a tunable, but this
new one is *WAY* simpler.  I challenge anyone to describe in one
sentence how the old one worked.  Here's the way the new one
works:

	If we are flushing more pages than the ceiling, we use
	the full flush, otherwise we use per-page flushes.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154101.12B52CAF@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      2d040a1c
    • D
      x86/mm: Add tracepoints for TLB flushes · d17d8f9d
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      We don't have any good way to figure out what kinds of flushes
are being attempted.  Right now, we can try to use the vm
counters, but those only tell us what we actually did with the
hardware (one-by-one vs full) and don't tell us what was actually
_requested_.

This allows us to select out "interesting" TLB flushes that we
might want to optimize (like the ranged ones) and ignore the ones
that we have very little control over (the ones at context
switch).
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154059.4C96CBA5@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      d17d8f9d
    • D
      x86/mm: Unify remote INVLPG code · a23421f1
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      There are currently three paths through the remote flush code:

1. full invalidation
2. single page invalidation using invlpg
3. ranged invalidation using invlpg

This takes 2 and 3 and combines them in to a single path by
making the single-page one just be the start and end be start
plus a single page.  This makes placement of our tracepoint easier.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154058.E0F90408@viggo.jf.intel.com
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      a23421f1
    • D
      x86/mm: Fix missed global TLB flush stat · 9dfa6dee
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      If we take the

	if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || vmflag & VM_HUGETLB) {
		local_flush_tlb();
		goto out;
	}

path out of flush_tlb_mm_range(), we will have flushed the tlb,
but not incremented NR_TLB_LOCAL_FLUSH_ALL.  This unifies the
way out of the function so that we always take a single path when
doing a full tlb flush.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154056.FF763B76@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      9dfa6dee
    • D
      x86/mm: Rip out complicated, out-of-date, buggy TLB flushing · e9f4e0a9
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      I think the flush_tlb_mm_range() code that tries to tune the
flush sizes based on the CPU needs to get ripped out for
several reasons:

1. It is obviously buggy.  It uses mm->total_vm to judge the
   task's footprint in the TLB.  It should certainly be using
   some measure of RSS, *NOT* ->total_vm since only resident
   memory can populate the TLB.
2. Haswell, and several other CPUs are missing from the
   intel_tlb_flushall_shift_set() function.  Thus, it has been
   demonstrated to bitrot quickly in practice.
3. It is plain wrong in my vm:
	[    0.037444] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0
	[    0.037444] Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 0, 2MB 0, 4MB 0
	[    0.037444] tlb_flushall_shift: 6
   Which leads to it to never use invlpg.
4. The assumptions about TLB refill costs are wrong:
	http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1337782555-8088-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com
    (more on this in later patches)
5. I can not reproduce the original data: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59
   I believe the sample times were too short.  Running the
   benchmark in a loop yields times that vary quite a bit.

Note that this leaves us with a static ceiling of 1 page.  This
is a conservative, dumb setting, and will be revised in a later
patch.

This also removes the code which attempts to predict whether we
are flushing data or instructions.  We expect instruction flushes
to be relatively rare and not worth tuning for explicitly.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154055.ABC88E89@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      e9f4e0a9
    • D
      x86/mm: Clean up the TLB flushing code · 4995ab9c
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      The

	if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)

line of code is not exactly the easiest to audit, especially when
it ends up at two different indentation levels.  This eliminates
one of the the copy-n-paste versions.  It also gives us a unified
exit point for each path through this function.  We need this in
a minute for our tracepoint.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20140731154054.44F1CDDC@viggo.jf.intel.comAcked-by: NRik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: NMel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
      4995ab9c
  21. 25 1月, 2014 3 次提交
  23. 12 9月, 2013 2 次提交
    • D
      mm: vmstats: track TLB flush stats on UP too · 6df46865
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      The previous patch doing vmstats for TLB flushes ("mm: vmstats: tlb flush
counters") effectively missed UP since arch/x86/mm/tlb.c is only compiled
for SMP.

UP systems do not do remote TLB flushes, so compile those counters out on
UP.

arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/generic.c calls __flush_tlb() directly.  This is
probably an optimization since both the mtrr code and __flush_tlb() write
cr4.  It would probably be safe to make that a flush_tlb_all() (and then
get these statistics), but the mtrr code is ancient and I'm hesitant to
touch it other than to just stick in the counters.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: tweak comments]
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      6df46865
    • D
      mm: vmstats: tlb flush counters · 9824cf97
      由 Dave Hansen 提交于 
      I was investigating some TLB flush scaling issues and realized that we do
not have any good methods for figuring out how many TLB flushes we are
doing.

It would be nice to be able to do these in generic code, but the
arch-independent calls don't explicitly specify whether we actually need
to do remote flushes or not.  In the end, we really need to know if we
actually _did_ global vs.  local invalidations, so that leaves us with few
options other than to muck with the counters from arch-specific code.
Signed-off-by: NDave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      9824cf97
  25. 25 1月, 2013 1 次提交
  27. 30 11月, 2012 1 次提交
  29. 15 11月, 2012 1 次提交
  31. 28 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  33. 07 9月, 2012 1 次提交
  35. 28 6月, 2012 7 次提交
    • A
      x86/tlb: do flush_tlb_kernel_range by 'invlpg' · effee4b9
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      This patch do flush_tlb_kernel_range by 'invlpg'. The performance pay
and gain was analyzed in previous patch
(x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range).

In the testing: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/21/10

The pay is mostly covered by long kernel path, but the gain is still
quite clear, memory access in user APP can increase 30+% when kernel
execute this funtion.
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-10-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      effee4b9
    • A
      x86/tlb: replace INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR · 52aec330
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      There are 32 INVALIDATE_TLB_VECTOR now in kernel. That is quite big
amount of vector in IDT. But it is still not enough, since modern x86
sever has more cpu number. That still causes heavy lock contention
in TLB flushing.

The patch using generic smp call function to replace it. That saved 32
vector number in IDT, and resolved the lock contention in TLB
flushing on large system.

In the NHM EX machine 4P * 8cores * HT = 64 CPUs, hackbench pthread
has 3% performance increase.
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-9-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      52aec330
    • A
      x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 · 611ae8e3
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all
TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole
process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later
accessing.

This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes:
1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function.
2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input.

My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59
show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up
on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'.

Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch:
-------------
I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest
kernel.
After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches
brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf'
testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel
build' testing.

Some detailed testing results are below.

Testing Environment:
	Hardware: Romley-EP platform
	Xen version: latest upstream
	Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6
	Guest vCPU number: 8
	NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth)

In 'kernel build' testing in guest:
	Command line  |  performance gain
    make -j 4      |    3.81%
    make -j 8      |    0.37%
    make -j 16     |    -0.52%

In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size
16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet.
I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server
automatically generated several threads to response them.
I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing.
	Packet size  |  Thread number | performance gain
	16384 bytes  |      4       |   0.02%
	16384 bytes  |      8       |   2.21%
	16384 bytes  |      16      |   2.04%
	64 bytes     |      4       |   1.07%
	64 bytes     |      8       |   3.31%
	64 bytes     |      16      |   0.71%
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comTested-by: NRen, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      611ae8e3
    • A
      x86/tlb: add tlb_flushall_shift knob into debugfs · 3df3212f
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      kernel will replace cr3 rewrite with invlpg when
  tlb_flush_entries <= active_tlb_entries / 2^tlb_flushall_factor
if tlb_flushall_factor is -1, kernel won't do this replacement.

User can modify its value according to specific CPU/applications.

Thanks for Borislav providing the help message of
CONFIG_DEBUG_TLBFLUSH.
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-6-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      3df3212f
    • A
      x86/tlb: add tlb_flushall_shift for specific CPU · c4211f42
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      Testing show different CPU type(micro architectures and NUMA mode) has
different balance points between the TLB flush all and multiple invlpg.
And there also has cases the tlb flush change has no any help.

This patch give a interface to let x86 vendor developers have a chance
to set different shift for different CPU type.

like some machine in my hands, balance points is 16 entries on
Romely-EP; while it is at 8 entries on Bloomfield NHM-EP; and is 256 on
IVB mobile CPU. but on model 15 core2 Xeon using invlpg has nothing
help.

For untested machine, do a conservative optimization, same as NHM CPU.
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-5-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      c4211f42
    • A
      x86/tlb: fall back to flush all when meet a THP large page · d8dfe60d
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      We don't need to flush large pages by PAGE_SIZE step, that just waste
time. and actually, large page don't need 'invlpg' optimizing according
to our micro benchmark. So, just flush whole TLB is enough for them.

The following result is tested on a 2CPU * 4cores * 2HT NHM EP machine,
with THP 'always' setting.

Multi-thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number:
                       without this patch 	with this patch
./mprotect -t 1         14ns                       13ns
./mprotect -t 2         13ns                       13ns
./mprotect -t 4         12ns                       11ns
./mprotect -t 8         14ns                       10ns
./mprotect -t 16        28ns                       28ns
./mprotect -t 32        54ns                       52ns
./mprotect -t 128       200ns                      200ns
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-4-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      d8dfe60d
    • A
      x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range · e7b52ffd
      由 Alex Shi 提交于 
      x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the
flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not
the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to
flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later
remain TLB lines accessing.

But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can
compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU.

So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at:
	(512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) =
		X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost)

Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries.

But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the
assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And
2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are
accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when
the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries.
Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any
suggestions are welcomed.

As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB
entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now.

My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70
percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing
performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel.

Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP
'always':

multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number:
	       	        with patch   unpatched 3.4-rc4
./mprotect -t 1           14ns		24ns
./mprotect -t 2           13ns		22ns
./mprotect -t 4           12ns		19ns
./mprotect -t 8           14ns		16ns
./mprotect -t 16          28ns		26ns
./mprotect -t 32          54ns		51ns
./mprotect -t 128         200ns		199ns

Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing:

		       	with patch   unpatched 3.4-rc4
./mprotect		    7ns			11ns
./mprotect -p 4096  -l 8 -n 10240
			    21ns		21ns

[ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com
  has additional performance numbers. ]
Signed-off-by: NAlex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.comSigned-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      e7b52ffd
  37. 15 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  39. 23 3月, 2012 1 次提交
  41. 15 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  43. 14 2月, 2011 1 次提交