Re: [PATCH 40/41] mm: separate vma->lock from vm_area_struct
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: 2023-01-17 20:11:54
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: 2023-01-17 20:11:54
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, lkml
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 10:34 AM Jann Horn [off-list ref] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 9:55 PM Suren Baghdasaryan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
vma->lock being part of the vm_area_struct causes performance regression during page faults because during contention its count and owner fields are constantly updated and having other parts of vm_area_struct used during page fault handling next to them causes constant cache line bouncing. Fix that by moving the lock outside of the vm_area_struct. All attempts to keep vma->lock inside vm_area_struct in a separate cache line still produce performance regression especially on NUMA machines. Smallest regression was achieved when lock is placed in the fourth cache line but that bloats vm_area_struct to 256 bytes.Just checking: When you tested putting the lock in different cache lines, did you force the slab allocator to actually store the vm_area_struct with cacheline alignment (by setting SLAB_HWCACHE_ALIGN on the slab or with a ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp on the struct definition)?
Yep, I tried all these combinations and still saw noticeable regression.