xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: thp: Return the correct value for change_huge_pmd

To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: thp: Return the correct value for change_huge_pmd
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2015 20:56:16 +0000
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CA+55aFyCgzNGU-VAaKvwTYFhtJc_ugLK6hRzZBCxMYdAt5TVuA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1425741651-29152-1-git-send-email-mgorman@xxxxxxx> <1425741651-29152-2-git-send-email-mgorman@xxxxxxx> <CA+55aFyCgzNGU-VAaKvwTYFhtJc_ugLK6hRzZBCxMYdAt5TVuA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 12:31:03PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:20 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >                 if (!prot_numa || !pmd_protnone(*pmd)) {
> > -                       ret = 1;
> >                         entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
> >                         entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> >                         ret = HPAGE_PMD_NR;
> 
> Hmm. I know I acked this already, but the return value - which correct
> - is still potentially something we could improve upon.
> 
> In particular, we don't need to flush the TLB's if the old entry was
> not present. Sadly, we don't have a helper function for that.
> 
> But the code *could* do something like
> 
>     entry = pmdp_get_and_clear_notify(mm, addr, pmd);
>     ret = pmd_tlb_cacheable(entry) ? HPAGE_PMD_NR : 1;
>     entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> 
> where pmd_tlb_cacheable() on x86 would test if _PAGE_PRESENT (bit #0) is set.
> 

I agree with you in principle. pmd_tlb_cacheable looks and sounds very
similar to pte_accessible().

> In particular, that would mean that as we change *from* a protnone
> (whether NUMA or really protnone) we wouldn't need to flush the TLB.
> 
> In fact, we could make it even more aggressive: it's not just an old
> non-present TLB entry that doesn't need flushing - we can avoid the
> flushing whenever we strictly increase the access rigths. So we could
> have something that takes the old entry _and_ the new protections into
> account, and avoids the TLB flush if the new entry is strictly more
> permissive.
> 
> This doesn't explain the extra TLB flushes Dave sees, though, because
> the old code didn't make those kinds of optimizations either. But
> maybe something like this is worth doing.
> 

I think it is worth doing although it'll be after LSF/MM before I do it. I
severely doubt this is what Dave is seeing because the vmstats indicated
there was no THP activity but it's still a good idea.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

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