lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 0/5] optimize memblock_next_valid_pfn and early_pfn_valid
From
Date


On 3/28/2018 8:30 AM, Wei Yang Wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 03:15:08PM +0800, Jia He wrote:
>>
>> On 3/27/2018 9:02 AM, Wei Yang Wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 08:02:14PM -0700, Jia He wrote:
>>>> Commit b92df1de5d28 ("mm: page_alloc: skip over regions of invalid pfns
>>>> where possible") tried to optimize the loop in memmap_init_zone(). But
>>>> there is still some room for improvement.
>>>>
>>>> Patch 1 remain the memblock_next_valid_pfn when CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_PFN_VALID
>>>> is enabled
>>>> Patch 2 optimizes the memblock_next_valid_pfn()
>>>> Patch 3~5 optimizes the early_pfn_valid(), I have to split it into parts
>>>> because the changes are located across subsystems.
>>>>
>>>> I tested the pfn loop process in memmap_init(), the same as before.
>>>> As for the performance improvement, after this set, I can see the time
>>>> overhead of memmap_init() is reduced from 41313 us to 24345 us in my
>>>> armv8a server(QDF2400 with 96G memory).
>>>>
>>>> Attached the memblock region information in my server.
>>>> [ 86.956758] Zone ranges:
>>>> [ 86.959452] DMA [mem 0x0000000000200000-0x00000000ffffffff]
>>>> [ 86.966041] Normal [mem 0x0000000100000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
>>>> [ 86.972631] Movable zone start for each node
>>>> [ 86.977179] Early memory node ranges
>>>> [ 86.980985] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000200000-0x000000000021ffff]
>>>> [ 86.987666] node 0: [mem 0x0000000000820000-0x000000000307ffff]
>>>> [ 86.994348] node 0: [mem 0x0000000003080000-0x000000000308ffff]
>>>> [ 87.001029] node 0: [mem 0x0000000003090000-0x00000000031fffff]
>>>> [ 87.007710] node 0: [mem 0x0000000003200000-0x00000000033fffff]
>>>> [ 87.014392] node 0: [mem 0x0000000003410000-0x000000000563ffff]
>>>> [ 87.021073] node 0: [mem 0x0000000005640000-0x000000000567ffff]
>>>> [ 87.027754] node 0: [mem 0x0000000005680000-0x00000000056dffff]
>>>> [ 87.034435] node 0: [mem 0x00000000056e0000-0x00000000086fffff]
>>>> [ 87.041117] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008700000-0x000000000871ffff]
>>>> [ 87.047798] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008720000-0x000000000894ffff]
>>>> [ 87.054479] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008950000-0x0000000008baffff]
>>>> [ 87.061161] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008bb0000-0x0000000008bcffff]
>>>> [ 87.067842] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008bd0000-0x0000000008c4ffff]
>>>> [ 87.074524] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008c50000-0x0000000008e2ffff]
>>>> [ 87.081205] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008e30000-0x0000000008e4ffff]
>>>> [ 87.087886] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008e50000-0x0000000008fcffff]
>>>> [ 87.094568] node 0: [mem 0x0000000008fd0000-0x000000000910ffff]
>>>> [ 87.101249] node 0: [mem 0x0000000009110000-0x00000000092effff]
>>>> [ 87.107930] node 0: [mem 0x00000000092f0000-0x000000000930ffff]
>>>> [ 87.114612] node 0: [mem 0x0000000009310000-0x000000000963ffff]
>>>> [ 87.121293] node 0: [mem 0x0000000009640000-0x000000000e61ffff]
>>>> [ 87.127975] node 0: [mem 0x000000000e620000-0x000000000e64ffff]
>>>> [ 87.134657] node 0: [mem 0x000000000e650000-0x000000000fffffff]
>>>> [ 87.141338] node 0: [mem 0x0000000010800000-0x0000000017feffff]
>>>> [ 87.148019] node 0: [mem 0x000000001c000000-0x000000001c00ffff]
>>>> [ 87.154701] node 0: [mem 0x000000001c010000-0x000000001c7fffff]
>>>> [ 87.161383] node 0: [mem 0x000000001c810000-0x000000007efbffff]
>>>> [ 87.168064] node 0: [mem 0x000000007efc0000-0x000000007efdffff]
>>>> [ 87.174746] node 0: [mem 0x000000007efe0000-0x000000007efeffff]
>>>> [ 87.181427] node 0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
>>>> [ 87.188108] node 0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
>>> Hi, Jia
>>>
>>> I haven't taken a deep look into your code, just one curious question on your
>>> memory layout.
>>>
>>> The log above is printed out in free_area_init_nodes(), which iterates on
>>> memblock.memory and prints them. If I am not wrong, memory regions added to
>>> memblock.memory are ordered and merged if possible.
>>>
>>> While from your log, I see many regions could be merged but are isolated. For
>>> example, the last two region:
>>>
>>> node 0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
>>> node 0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
>>>
>>> So I am curious why they are isolated instead of combined to one.
>>>
>>> >From the code, the possible reason is the region's flag differs from each
>>> other. If you have time, would you mind taking a look into this?
>>>
>> Hi Wei
>> I thought these 2 have different flags
>> [    0.000000] idx=30,region [7eff0000:10000]flag=4     <--- aka
>> MEMBLOCK_NOMAP
>> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007eff0000-0x000000007effffff]
>> [    0.000000] idx=31,region [7f000000:81000000]flag=0 <--- aka MEMBLOCK_NONE
>> [    0.000000]   node   0: [mem 0x000000007f000000-0x00000017ffffffff]
> Thanks.
>
> Hmm, I am not that familiar with those flags, while they look like to indicate
> the physical capability of this range.
>
> MEMBLOCK_NONE no special
> MEMBLOCK_HOTPLUG hotplug-able
> MEMBLOCK_MIRROR high reliable
> MEMBLOCK_NOMAP no direct map
>
> While these flags are not there when they are first added into the memory
> region. When you look at the memblock_add_range(), the last parameter passed
> is always 0. This means current several separated ranges reflect the physical
> memory capability layout.
>
> Then, why this layout is so scattered? As you can see several ranges are less
> than 1M.
>
> If, just my assumption, we could merge some of them, we could have a better
> performance. Less ranges, less searching time.
Thanks for your suggestions, Wei
Need further digging and will consider to improve it in another patchset.

--
Cheers,
Jia

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-28 03:46    [W:0.161 / U:6.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site