Thread (38 messages) 38 messages, 9 authors, 2018-10-16

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: speed up mremap by 500x on large regions

From: Kirill A. Shutemov <hidden>
Date: 2018-10-12 11:31:03
Also in: kvmarm, linux-alpha, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linux-um

On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 06:37:56PM -0700, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
Android needs to mremap large regions of memory during memory management
related operations. The mremap system call can be really slow if THP is
not enabled. The bottleneck is move_page_tables, which is copying each
pte at a time, and can be really slow across a large map. Turning on THP
may not be a viable option, and is not for us. This patch speeds up the
performance for non-THP system by copying at the PMD level when possible.

The speed up is three orders of magnitude. On a 1GB mremap, the mremap
completion times drops from 160-250 millesconds to 380-400 microseconds.

Before:
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 242321014 nanoseconds.
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 196842467 nanoseconds.
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 167051162 nanoseconds.

After:
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 385781 nanoseconds.
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 388959 nanoseconds.
Total mremap time for 1GB data: 402813 nanoseconds.

Incase THP is enabled, the optimization is skipped. I also flush the
tlb every time we do this optimization since I couldn't find a way to
determine if the low-level PTEs are dirty. It is seen that the cost of
doing so is not much compared the improvement, on both x86-64 and arm64.
I looked into the code more and noticed move_pte() helper called from
move_ptes(). It changes PTE entry to suite new address.

It is only defined in non-trivial way on Sparc. I don't know much about
Sparc and it's hard for me to say if the optimization will break anything
there.

I think it worth to disable the optimization if __HAVE_ARCH_MOVE_PTE is
defined. Or make architectures state explicitely that the optimization is
safe.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -239,7 +287,21 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 			split_huge_pmd(vma, old_pmd, old_addr);
 			if (pmd_trans_unstable(old_pmd))
 				continue;
+		} else if (extent == PMD_SIZE) {
Hm. What guarantees that new_addr is PMD_SIZE-aligned?
It's not obvious to me.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help