xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [regression v4.0-rc1] mm: IPIs from TLB flushes causing significant

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [regression v4.0-rc1] mm: IPIs from TLB flushes causing significant performance degradation.
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 18:37:47 -0800
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Matt B <jackdachef@xxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tvSGonUFm46bOGWz7k4EZxTzutUEtg0D9TF0GJVwYn4=; b=X2eJKdd9iVvFVDN1vFIDTOuSsUEh1VbOVfAUcACbTJNmDnKFmYHuSGISjpKxyyzRzr MT8CtA6YxoD0bi3zwsr8AnRUKx2CZbBoN2KN6wCxjTcGGbg3AxFr+bv6CDz4bhpcZqdf Q2HANjH2717tKrDuFjcbXUNVuIhTEdAtUIjbNeL1oGRy+0VoVZNt8QN1ZgpCZ9rHh8wq ZOU2D50qpU1yP+CL7UTcEK5nwuvYRWh40lZ6auD/bhLt3ZaYfquCEku29FDtT2kcVeSv 1ipjJt8x6Wvqv+ickTRItRjBLIu4/DyyrGFWGUIG6E/w/+pMjbot/MsszDbb1CKfXw/S /9vA==
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=tvSGonUFm46bOGWz7k4EZxTzutUEtg0D9TF0GJVwYn4=; b=Kq4Q86QRfcq4SLp8x4CJTrXRmgJbAZC2rGVimq0Tmne3XdM4ROv7pvZI/KJ2BXGSUJ XCmFP9g5/95b9aiLqeg6Kgx1exNhQftW1OJT94w3dA5vd0rmCq2Pq4ZiDU8VN1FmkziU gNeqUdSUvlfhfw24yxWafmIEn12oxlzQVeiD8=
In-reply-to: <CA+55aFw+7V9DfxBA2_DhMNrEQOkvdwjFFga5Y67-a6yVeAz+NQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20150302010413.GP4251@dastard> <CA+55aFzGFvVGD_8Y=jTkYwgmYgZnW0p0Fjf7OHFPRcL6Mz4HOw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150303014733.GL18360@dastard> <CA+55aFw+7V9DfxBA2_DhMNrEQOkvdwjFFga5Y67-a6yVeAz+NQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linus971@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> There might be some other case where the new "just change the
> protection" doesn't do the "oh, but it the protection didn't change,
> don't bother flushing". I don't see it.

Hmm. I wonder.. In change_pte_range(), we just unconditionally change
the protection bits.

But the old numa code used to do

    if (!pte_numa(oldpte)) {
        ptep_set_numa(mm, addr, pte);

so it would actually avoid the pte update if a numa-prot page was
marked numa-prot again.

But are those migrate-page calls really common enough to make these
things happen often enough on the same pages for this all to matter?

Odd.

So it would be good if your profiles just show "there's suddenly a
*lot* more calls to flush_tlb_page() from XYZ" and the culprit is
obvious that way..

                       Linus

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>