linux_old1/arch/x86/mm/tlb.c

346 lines
8.7 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

#include <linux/init.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
#include <linux/smp.h>
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/module.h>
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 11:07:03 +08:00
#include <linux/cpu.h>
#include <asm/tlbflush.h>
#include <asm/mmu_context.h>
#include <asm/cache.h>
#include <asm/apic.h>
#include <asm/uv/uv.h>
#include <linux/debugfs.h>
DEFINE_PER_CPU_SHARED_ALIGNED(struct tlb_state, cpu_tlbstate)
= { &init_mm, 0, };
/*
* Smarter SMP flushing macros.
* c/o Linus Torvalds.
*
* These mean you can really definitely utterly forget about
* writing to user space from interrupts. (Its not allowed anyway).
*
* Optimizations Manfred Spraul <manfred@colorfullife.com>
*
* More scalable flush, from Andi Kleen
*
* Implement flush IPI by CALL_FUNCTION_VECTOR, Alex Shi
*/
struct flush_tlb_info {
struct mm_struct *flush_mm;
unsigned long flush_start;
unsigned long flush_end;
};
x86: Spread tlb flush vector between nodes Currently flush tlb vector allocation is based on below equation: sender = smp_processor_id() % 8 This isn't optimal, CPUs from different node can have the same vector, this causes a lot of lock contention. Instead, we can assign the same vectors to CPUs from the same node, while different node has different vectors. This has below advantages: a. if there is lock contention, the lock contention is between CPUs from one node. This should be much cheaper than the contention between nodes. b. completely avoid lock contention between nodes. This especially benefits kswapd, which is the biggest user of tlb flush, since kswapd sets its affinity to specific node. In my test, this could reduce > 20% CPU overhead in extreme case.The test machine has 4 nodes and each node has 16 CPUs. I then bind each node's kswapd to the first CPU of the node. I run a workload with 4 sequential mmap file read thread. The files are empty sparse file. This workload will trigger a lot of page reclaim and tlbflush. The kswapd bind is to easy trigger the extreme tlb flush lock contention because otherwise kswapd keeps migrating between CPUs of a node and I can't get stable result. Sure in real workload, we can't always see so big tlb flush lock contention, but it's possible. [ hpa: folded in fix from Eric Dumazet to use this_cpu_read() ] Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> LKML-Reference: <1287544023.4571.8.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@linux.intel.com>
2010-10-20 11:07:03 +08:00
/*
* We cannot call mmdrop() because we are in interrupt context,
* instead update mm->cpu_vm_mask.
*/
void leave_mm(int cpu)
{
struct mm_struct *active_mm = this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm);
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK)
BUG();
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm))) {
cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, mm_cpumask(active_mm));
load_cr3(swapper_pg_dir);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(leave_mm);
/*
* The flush IPI assumes that a thread switch happens in this order:
* [cpu0: the cpu that switches]
* 1) switch_mm() either 1a) or 1b)
* 1a) thread switch to a different mm
* 1a1) set cpu_tlbstate to TLBSTATE_OK
* Now the tlb flush NMI handler flush_tlb_func won't call leave_mm
* if cpu0 was in lazy tlb mode.
* 1a2) update cpu active_mm
* Now cpu0 accepts tlb flushes for the new mm.
* 1a3) cpu_set(cpu, new_mm->cpu_vm_mask);
* Now the other cpus will send tlb flush ipis.
* 1a4) change cr3.
* 1a5) cpu_clear(cpu, old_mm->cpu_vm_mask);
* Stop ipi delivery for the old mm. This is not synchronized with
* the other cpus, but flush_tlb_func ignore flush ipis for the wrong
* mm, and in the worst case we perform a superfluous tlb flush.
* 1b) thread switch without mm change
* cpu active_mm is correct, cpu0 already handles flush ipis.
* 1b1) set cpu_tlbstate to TLBSTATE_OK
* 1b2) test_and_set the cpu bit in cpu_vm_mask.
* Atomically set the bit [other cpus will start sending flush ipis],
* and test the bit.
* 1b3) if the bit was 0: leave_mm was called, flush the tlb.
* 2) switch %%esp, ie current
*
* The interrupt must handle 2 special cases:
* - cr3 is changed before %%esp, ie. it cannot use current->{active_,}mm.
* - the cpu performs speculative tlb reads, i.e. even if the cpu only
* runs in kernel space, the cpu could load tlb entries for user space
* pages.
*
* The good news is that cpu_tlbstate is local to each cpu, no
* write/read ordering problems.
*/
/*
* TLB flush funcation:
* 1) Flush the tlb entries if the cpu uses the mm that's being flushed.
* 2) Leave the mm if we are in the lazy tlb mode.
*/
static void flush_tlb_func(void *info)
{
struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
if (f->flush_mm != this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.active_mm))
return;
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_OK) {
if (f->flush_end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || !cpu_has_invlpg)
local_flush_tlb();
else if (!f->flush_end)
__flush_tlb_single(f->flush_start);
else {
unsigned long addr;
addr = f->flush_start;
while (addr < f->flush_end) {
__flush_tlb_single(addr);
addr += PAGE_SIZE;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
}
}
} else
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
void native_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end)
{
struct flush_tlb_info info;
info.flush_mm = mm;
info.flush_start = start;
info.flush_end = end;
if (is_uv_system()) {
unsigned int cpu;
cpu = smp_processor_id();
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
cpumask = uv_flush_tlb_others(cpumask, mm, start, end, cpu);
if (cpumask)
smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func,
&info, 1);
return;
}
smp_call_function_many(cpumask, flush_tlb_func, &info, 1);
}
void flush_tlb_current_task(void)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = current->mm;
preempt_disable();
local_flush_tlb();
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
preempt_enable();
}
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
/*
* It can find out the THP large page, or
* HUGETLB page in tlb_flush when THP disabled
*/
static inline unsigned long has_large_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
pgd_t *pgd;
pud_t *pud;
pmd_t *pmd;
unsigned long addr = ALIGN(start, HPAGE_SIZE);
for (; addr < end; addr += HPAGE_SIZE) {
pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
if (likely(!pgd_none(*pgd))) {
pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
if (likely(!pud_none(*pud))) {
pmd = pmd_offset(pud, addr);
if (likely(!pmd_none(*pmd)))
if (pmd_large(*pmd))
return addr;
}
}
}
return 0;
}
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
void flush_tlb_mm_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
unsigned long end, unsigned long vmflag)
{
unsigned long addr;
unsigned act_entries, tlb_entries = 0;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
preempt_disable();
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
if (current->active_mm != mm)
goto flush_all;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
if (!current->mm) {
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
goto flush_all;
}
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || tlb_flushall_shift == -1
|| vmflag == VM_HUGETLB) {
local_flush_tlb();
goto flush_all;
}
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
/* In modern CPU, last level tlb used for both data/ins */
if (vmflag & VM_EXEC)
tlb_entries = tlb_lli_4k[ENTRIES];
else
tlb_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
/* Assume all of TLB entries was occupied by this task */
act_entries = mm->total_vm > tlb_entries ? tlb_entries : mm->total_vm;
/* tlb_flushall_shift is on balance point, details in commit log */
if ((end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT > act_entries >> tlb_flushall_shift)
local_flush_tlb();
else {
if (has_large_page(mm, start, end)) {
local_flush_tlb();
goto flush_all;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
}
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
/* flush range by one by one 'invlpg' */
for (addr = start; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE)
__flush_tlb_single(addr);
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm),
smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, start, end);
preempt_enable();
return;
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
}
x86/tlb: enable tlb flush range support for x86 Not every tlb_flush execution moment is really need to evacuate all TLB entries, like in munmap, just few 'invlpg' is better for whole process performance, since it leaves most of TLB entries for later accessing. This patch also rewrite flush_tlb_range for 2 purposes: 1, split it out to get flush_blt_mm_range function. 2, clean up to reduce line breaking, thanks for Borislav's input. My micro benchmark 'mummap' http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/5/17/59 show that the random memory access on other CPU has 0~50% speed up on a 2P * 4cores * HT NHM EP while do 'munmap'. Thanks Yongjie's testing on this patch: ------------- I used Linux 3.4-RC6 w/ and w/o his patches as Xen dom0 and guest kernel. After running two benchmarks in Xen HVM guest, I found his patches brought about 1%~3% performance gain in 'kernel build' and 'netperf' testing, though the performance gain was not very stable in 'kernel build' testing. Some detailed testing results are below. Testing Environment: Hardware: Romley-EP platform Xen version: latest upstream Linux kernel: 3.4-RC6 Guest vCPU number: 8 NIC: Intel 82599 (10GB bandwidth) In 'kernel build' testing in guest: Command line | performance gain make -j 4 | 3.81% make -j 8 | 0.37% make -j 16 | -0.52% In 'netperf' testing, we tested TCP_STREAM with default socket size 16384 byte as large packet and 64 byte as small packet. I used several clients to add networking pressure, then 'netperf' server automatically generated several threads to response them. I also used large-size packet and small-size packet in the testing. Packet size | Thread number | performance gain 16384 bytes | 4 | 0.02% 16384 bytes | 8 | 2.21% 16384 bytes | 16 | 2.04% 64 bytes | 4 | 1.07% 64 bytes | 8 | 3.31% 64 bytes | 16 | 0.71% Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-8-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Tested-by: Ren, Yongjie <yongjie.ren@intel.com> Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:22 +08:00
flush_all:
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, 0UL, TLB_FLUSH_ALL);
preempt_enable();
}
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
void flush_tlb_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start)
{
struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
preempt_disable();
if (current->active_mm == mm) {
if (current->mm)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
__flush_tlb_one(start);
else
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
if (cpumask_any_but(mm_cpumask(mm), smp_processor_id()) < nr_cpu_ids)
x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range x86 has no flush_tlb_range support in instruction level. Currently the flush_tlb_range just implemented by flushing all page table. That is not the best solution for all scenarios. In fact, if we just use 'invlpg' to flush few lines from TLB, we can get the performance gain from later remain TLB lines accessing. But the 'invlpg' instruction costs much of time. Its execution time can compete with cr3 rewriting, and even a bit more on SNB CPU. So, on a 512 4KB TLB entries CPU, the balance points is at: (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X(TLB flush entries) * 100ns(assumed invlpg cost) Here, X is 256, that is 1/2 of 512 entries. But with the mysterious CPU pre-fetcher and page miss handler Unit, the assumed TLB refill cost is far lower then 100ns in sequential access. And 2 HT siblings in one core makes the memory access more faster if they are accessing the same memory. So, in the patch, I just do the change when the target entries is less than 1/16 of whole active tlb entries. Actually, I have no data support for the percentage '1/16', so any suggestions are welcomed. As to hugetlb, guess due to smaller page table, and smaller active TLB entries, I didn't see benefit via my benchmark, so no optimizing now. My micro benchmark show in ideal scenarios, the performance improves 70 percent in reading. And in worst scenario, the reading/writing performance is similar with unpatched 3.4-rc4 kernel. Here is the reading data on my 2P * 4cores *HT NHM EP machine, with THP 'always': multi thread testing, '-t' paramter is thread number: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect -t 1 14ns 24ns ./mprotect -t 2 13ns 22ns ./mprotect -t 4 12ns 19ns ./mprotect -t 8 14ns 16ns ./mprotect -t 16 28ns 26ns ./mprotect -t 32 54ns 51ns ./mprotect -t 128 200ns 199ns Single process with sequencial flushing and memory accessing: with patch unpatched 3.4-rc4 ./mprotect 7ns 11ns ./mprotect -p 4096 -l 8 -n 10240 21ns 21ns [ hpa: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1B4B44D9196EFF41AE41FDA404FC0A100BFF94@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com has additional performance numbers. ] Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1340845344-27557-3-git-send-email-alex.shi@intel.com Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
2012-06-28 09:02:17 +08:00
flush_tlb_others(mm_cpumask(mm), mm, start, 0UL);
preempt_enable();
}
static void do_flush_tlb_all(void *info)
{
__flush_tlb_all();
if (this_cpu_read(cpu_tlbstate.state) == TLBSTATE_LAZY)
leave_mm(smp_processor_id());
}
void flush_tlb_all(void)
{
on_each_cpu(do_flush_tlb_all, NULL, 1);
}
static void do_kernel_range_flush(void *info)
{
struct flush_tlb_info *f = info;
unsigned long addr;
/* flush range by one by one 'invlpg' */
for (addr = f->flush_start; addr < f->flush_end; addr += PAGE_SIZE)
__flush_tlb_single(addr);
}
void flush_tlb_kernel_range(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
{
unsigned act_entries;
struct flush_tlb_info info;
/* In modern CPU, last level tlb used for both data/ins */
act_entries = tlb_lld_4k[ENTRIES];
/* Balance as user space task's flush, a bit conservative */
if (end == TLB_FLUSH_ALL || tlb_flushall_shift == -1 ||
(end - start) >> PAGE_SHIFT > act_entries >> tlb_flushall_shift)
on_each_cpu(do_flush_tlb_all, NULL, 1);
else {
info.flush_start = start;
info.flush_end = end;
on_each_cpu(do_kernel_range_flush, &info, 1);
}
}
#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_TLBFLUSH
static ssize_t tlbflush_read_file(struct file *file, char __user *user_buf,
size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
{
char buf[32];
unsigned int len;
len = sprintf(buf, "%hd\n", tlb_flushall_shift);
return simple_read_from_buffer(user_buf, count, ppos, buf, len);
}
static ssize_t tlbflush_write_file(struct file *file,
const char __user *user_buf, size_t count, loff_t *ppos)
{
char buf[32];
ssize_t len;
s8 shift;
len = min(count, sizeof(buf) - 1);
if (copy_from_user(buf, user_buf, len))
return -EFAULT;
buf[len] = '\0';
if (kstrtos8(buf, 0, &shift))
return -EINVAL;
if (shift > 64)
return -EINVAL;
tlb_flushall_shift = shift;
return count;
}
static const struct file_operations fops_tlbflush = {
.read = tlbflush_read_file,
.write = tlbflush_write_file,
.llseek = default_llseek,
};
static int __cpuinit create_tlb_flushall_shift(void)
{
if (cpu_has_invlpg) {
debugfs_create_file("tlb_flushall_shift", S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR,
arch_debugfs_dir, NULL, &fops_tlbflush);
}
return 0;
}
late_initcall(create_tlb_flushall_shift);
#endif