Received: by 2002:a25:ab43:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id u61csp921450ybi; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 21:45:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxilMr6VC7ursgVsWfg9Y3ClAjd12MM027jgjhcpSiXL8VNRTx5yxwFPZ3I0+X+AyXU4O8z X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:ba88:: with SMTP id k8mr52115707pls.196.1559969156613; Fri, 07 Jun 2019 21:45:56 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1559969156; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=yrAN5oDSf4PxhzoryYJa83l/ATSE9clbwTLZBwzwBvtANHfSOcUYikKWFeU1BecoLY aN9twoHIeLD8G+0TEFoCcKbbu6N4fTIry1AUH0jUXScIc0ipe6D4hwsnxD2ga0ZA77OM hFDBdSoCVoIvGkArQ81Q3Vyo0LP1ouyR08TeSxuV4vnXXGt7ie06Wg52lNp1cykyxIoO EHta0BxfmkgdTwpNIiQHEsSi1EEvNlXu7BHlCmUMsjRcCVvukAi/kte7L83c77H9DkAg La1fo1EX4M2is7kxSlZCVIU/FPFmCFPCC6VfdBpoBs7nO9oP+V4OXjrAFjsPk+B8R1pQ FgOg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=eeJY4hMhnpVgYhyzYdeQDYFsV639t8qyRowllY4LtdU=; b=MA8fQ/DT0ffv3+47VdE1KgVDezSk3vFChIENYjMvsAS9AyleeWGCFdWG6LN6nfAic3 znCHpmFCm6pY+J/8HuFsz0hLi0JHUP+TM8OLEum5FZbdtHpnTDZsCScFNAelvEiov6S3 9apXquOVTwKujbNFJ/e0TVSGpKfR9N38+LPEJT94vk66R/HZBCUtegGMuEh5A6CGtX+a Wp+Ovw9/sc3qFqRaELG5FjR0nb0kIucEd/lIYhYJw7lXEWdn9LAbhpCKBnPxkOGA0lm1 DqLO0rdAB+umOFD20VrkUD/7VHrd/MklTLcr4hwk/DMpy4RJgMSfIA2ovyZAdEizQs+S INEQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d185si3756211pfa.182.2019.06.07.21.45.40; Fri, 07 Jun 2019 21:45:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727283AbfFHEWf (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 00:22:35 -0400 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.35]:37806 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725308AbfFHEWf (ORCPT ); Sat, 8 Jun 2019 00:22:35 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id A743C53F4D0FF13F8075; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:22:23 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.177.223.23) by DGGEMS401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:22:22 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] remain and optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm and arm64 To: Will Deacon , Ard Biesheuvel CC: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , Catalin Marinas , Wei Yang , Linux-MM , Jia He , Eugeniu Rosca , Petr Tesarik , Nikolay Borisov , Russell King , Daniel Jordan , "AKASHI Takahiro" , Gioh Kim , Andrey Ryabinin , Laura Abbott , Daniel Vacek , Mel Gorman , "Vladimir Murzin" , Kees Cook , "Philip Derrin" , YASUAKI ISHIMATSU , "Jia He" , Kemi Wang , "Vlastimil Babka" , linux-arm-kernel , Steve Capper , Linux Kernel Mailing List , James Morse , Johannes Weiner , Andrew Morton References: <1534907237-2982-1-git-send-email-jia.he@hxt-semitech.com> <20180907144447.GD12788@arm.com> From: Hanjun Guo Message-ID: <84b8e874-2a52-274c-4806-968470e66a08@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2019 12:22:13 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180907144447.GD12788@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.223.23] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Ard, Will, This week we were trying to debug an issue of time consuming in mem_init(), and leading to this similar solution form Jia He, so I would like to bring this thread back, please see my detail test result below. On 2018/9/7 22:44, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 01:24:22PM +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: >> On 22 August 2018 at 05:07, Jia He wrote: >>> Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns >>> where possible") optimized the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But it causes >>> possible panic bug. So Daniel Vacek reverted it later. >>> >>> But as suggested by Daniel Vacek, it is fine to using memblock to skip >>> gaps and finding next valid frame with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID. >>> >>> More from what Daniel said: >>> "On arm and arm64, memblock is used by default. But generic version of >>> pfn_valid() is based on mem sections and memblock_next_valid_pfn() does >>> not always return the next valid one but skips more resulting in some >>> valid frames to be skipped (as if they were invalid). And that's why >>> kernel was eventually crashing on some !arm machines." >>> >>> About the performance consideration: >>> As said by James in b92df1de5, >>> "I have tested this patch on a virtual model of a Samurai CPU with a >>> sparse memory map. The kernel boot time drops from 109 to 62 seconds." >>> Thus it would be better if we remain memblock_next_valid_pfn on arm/arm64. >>> >>> Besides we can remain memblock_next_valid_pfn, there is still some room >>> for improvement. After this set, I can see the time overhead of memmap_init >>> is reduced from 27956us to 13537us in my armv8a server(QDF2400 with 96G >>> memory, pagesize 64k). I believe arm server will benefit more if memory is >>> larger than TBs >>> >> >> OK so we can summarize the benefits of this series as follows: >> - boot time on a virtual model of a Samurai CPU drops from 109 to 62 seconds >> - boot time on a QDF2400 arm64 server with 96 GB of RAM drops by ~15 >> *milliseconds* >> >> Google was not very helpful in figuring out what a Samurai CPU is and >> why we should care about the boot time of Linux running on a virtual >> model of it, and the 15 ms speedup is not that compelling either. Testing this patch set on top of Kunpeng 920 based ARM64 server, with 384G memory in total, we got the time consuming below without this patch set with this patch set mem_init() 13310ms 1415ms So we got about 8x speedup on this machine, which is very impressive. The time consuming is related the memory DIMM size and where to locate those memory DIMMs in the slots. In above case, we are using 16G memory DIMM. We also tested 1T memory with 64G size for each memory DIMM on another ARM64 machine, the time consuming reduced from 20s to 2s (I think it's related to firmware implementations). >> >> Apologies to Jia that it took 11 revisions to reach this conclusion, >> but in /my/ opinion, tweaking the fragile memblock/pfn handling code >> for this reason is totally unjustified, and we're better off >> disregarding these patches. Indeed this patch set has a bug, For exampe, if we have 3 regions which is [a, b] [c, d] [e, f] if address of pfn is bigger than the end address of last region, we will increase early_region_idx to count of region, which is out of bound of the regions. Fixed by patch below, mm/memblock.c | 6 +++++- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/mm/memblock.c b/mm/memblock.c index 8279295..8283bf0 100644 --- a/mm/memblock.c +++ b/mm/memblock.c @@ -1252,13 +1252,17 @@ unsigned long __init_memblock memblock_next_valid_pfn(unsigned long pfn) if (pfn >= start_pfn && pfn < end_pfn) return pfn; - early_region_idx++; + /* try slow path */ + if (++early_region_idx == type->cnt) + goto slow_path; + next_start_pfn = PFN_DOWN(regions[early_region_idx].base); if (pfn >= end_pfn && pfn <= next_start_pfn) return next_start_pfn; } +slow_path: /* slow path, do the binary searching */ do { mid = (right + left) / 2; As the really impressive speedup on our ARM64 server system, could you reconsider this patch set for merge? if you want more data I'm willing to clarify and give more test. Thanks Hanjun