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;
Date:   Mon, 9 Mar 2020 12:35:33 +0300
From:   "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc:     Cannon Matthews <cannonmatthews@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: clear 1G pages with streaming stores on x86
Message-ID: <20200309093533.qj255nrgyofmtiqz@box>
References: <20200307010353.172991-1-cannonmatthews@google.com>
 <20200309000820.f37opzmppm67g6et@box>
 <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200309090630.GC8447@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 10:06:30AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 09-03-20 03:08:20, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 05:03:53PM -0800, Cannon Matthews wrote:
> > > Reimplement clear_gigantic_page() to clear gigabytes pages using the
> > > non-temporal streaming store instructions that bypass the cache
> > > (movnti), since an entire 1GiB region will not fit in the cache anyway.
> > > 
> > > Doing an mlock() on a 512GiB 1G-hugetlb region previously would take on
> > > average 134 seconds, about 260ms/GiB which is quite slow. Using `movnti`
> > > and optimizing the control flow over the constituent small pages, this
> > > can be improved roughly by a factor of 3-4x, with the 512GiB mlock()
> > > taking only 34 seconds on average, or 67ms/GiB.
> > > 
> > > The assembly code for the __clear_page_nt routine is more or less
> > > taken directly from the output of gcc with -O3 for this function with
> > > some tweaks to support arbitrary sizes and moving memory barriers:
> > > 
> > > void clear_page_nt_64i (void *page)
> > > {
> > >   for (int i = 0; i < GiB /sizeof(long long int); ++i)
> > >     {
> > >       _mm_stream_si64 (((long long int*)page) + i, 0);
> > >     }
> > >   sfence();
> > > }
> > > 
> > > Tested:
> > > 	Time to `mlock()` a 512GiB region on broadwell CPU
> > > 				AVG time (s)	% imp.	ms/page
> > > 	clear_page_erms		133.584		-	261
> > > 	clear_page_nt		34.154		74.43%	67
> > 
> > Some macrobenchmark would be great too.
> > 
> > > An earlier version of this code was sent as an RFC patch ~July 2018
> > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10543193/ but never merged.
> > 
> > Andi and I tried to use MOVNTI for large/gigantic page clearing back in
> > 2012[1]. Maybe it can be useful.
> > 
> > That patchset is somewhat more complex trying to keep the memory around
> > the fault address hot in cache. In theory it should help to reduce latency
> > on the first access to the memory.
> > 
> > I was not able to get convincing numbers back then for the hardware of the
> > time. Maybe it's better now.
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/1345470757-12005-1-git-send-email-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
> 
> Thanks for the reminder. I've had only a very vague recollection. Your
> series had a much wider scope indeed. Since then we have gained
> process_huge_page which tries to optimize normal huge pages.
> 
> Gigantic huge pages are a bit different. They are much less dynamic from
> the usage POV in my experience. Micro-optimizations for the first access
> tends to not matter at all as it is usually pre-allocation scenario. On
> the other hand, speeding up the initialization sounds like a good thing
> in general. It will be a single time benefit but if the additional code
> is not hard to maintain then I would be inclined to take it even with
> "artificial" numbers state above. There really shouldn't be other downsides
> except for the code maintenance, right?

I cannot think of any, no.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov