| /openbmc/linux/include/trace/events/ |
| H A D | xen.h | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/ |
| H A D | uv.h | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/x86/include/asm/ |
| H A D | paravirt_types.h | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| H A D | tlbflush.h | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| H A D | paravirt.h | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/x86/mm/ |
| H A D | tlb.c | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/x86/xen/ |
| H A D | mmu.c | e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
e7b52ffd Wed Jun 27 20:02:17 CDT 2012 Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> 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>
|