* Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 08:52:49AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andrew Hunter <a...@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, I have a patch (following) that modifies handling of APIC id tables,
> > > trading a small amount of space in the (NR_CPUS - nr_cpu_ids) >> 0 case
> > > for
> > > faster accesses and slightly better cache layout (as APIC ids are mostly
> > > used
> > > cross-cpu.) I'm not an APIC expert so I'd appreciate some eyes on this,
> > > but
> > > it shouldn't change any behavior whatsoever. Thoughts? (We're likely to
> > > merge
> > > this internally even if upstream judges the space loss too much of a
> > > cost, so
> > > I'd like to know if there's some other problem I've missed that this
> > > causes.)
> > >
> > > I've tested this cursorily in most of our internal configurations but not
> > > in
> > > any particularly exotic hardware/config.
> > >
> > >
> > > From e6bf354c05d98651e8c27f96582f0ab56992e58a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Andrew Hunter <a...@google.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:50:36 -0700
> > > Subject: [PATCH] x86: avoid per_cpu for APIC id tables
> > >
> > > DEFINE_PER_CPU(var) and friends go to lengths to arrange all of cpu
> > > i's per cpu variables as contiguous with each other; this requires a
> > > double indirection to reference a variable.
> > >
> > > For data that is logically per-cpu but
> > >
> > > a) rarely modified
> > > b) commonly accessed from other CPUs
> > >
> > > this is bad: no writes means we don't have to worry about cache ping
> > > pong, and cross-CPU access means there's no cache savings from not
> > > pulling in remote entries. (Actually, it's worse than "no" cache
> > > savings: instead of one cache line containing 32 useful APIC ids, it
> > > will contain 3 useful APIC ids and much other percpu data from the
> > > remote CPU we don't want.) It's also slower to access, due to the
> > > indirection.
> > >
> > > So instead use a flat array for APIC ids, most commonly used for IPIs
> > > and the like. This makes a measurable improvement (up to 10%) in some
> > > benchmarks that heavily stress remote wakeups.
> > >
> > > The one disadvantage is that we waste 8 bytes per unused CPU (NR_CPUS
> > > - actual). But this is a fairly small amount of memory for reasonable
> > > values of NR_CPUS.
> > >
> > > Tested: builds and boots, runs a suite of wakeup-intensive test without
> > > failure.
> >
> > 1)
> >
> > To make it easier to merge such patches it would also be nice to integrate
> > a remote wakeup performance test into 'perf bench sched pipe', so that we
> > can measure it more easily. You can also cite the results in your
> > changelog.
>
> While one could base the code (or even share) it with pipe, I'd like it
> to appear a different benchmark from the outside. Also I'm fairly sure
> they have a benchmark for this. Venki started this work, it looks like
> Andrew is taking over, good! :-)
Do you mean it should be in a separate 'perf bench sched remote-wakeup'
benchmark, appearing as a separate benchmark to the user? Agreed with
that.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
