[PATCHv7 00/29] THP-enabled tmpfs/shmem using compound pages

[Hugh Dickins]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Shi, Yang wrote:

> Hi Kirill,
> 
> Finally, I got some time to look into and try yours and Hugh's patches, got

Thank you.

> two problems.
> 
> 1. A quick boot up test on my ARM64 machine with your v7 tree shows some
> unexpected error:
> 
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:16863: No space left on device
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:16865: No space left on device
>          Starting DNS forwarder and DHCP server.systemd-journald[285]: Failed
> to save stream data /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:16867: No space left on
> device
> ..
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:16869: No space left on device
>          Starting Postfix Mail Transport Agent...
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:16871: No space left on device
>          Starting Berkeley Internet Name Domain (DNS)...
>          Starting Wait for Network to be Configured...
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:2422: No space left on device
> [  OK  ] Started /etc/rc.local Compatibility.
> [FAILED] Failed to start DNS forwarder and DHCP server.
> See 'systemctl status dnsmasq.service' for details.
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:2425: No space left on device
> [  OK  ] Started Serial Getty on ttyS1.
> [  OK  ] Started Serial Getty on ttyS0.
> [  OK  ] Started Getty on tty1.
> systemd-journald[285]: Failed to save stream data
> /run/systemd/journal/streams/8:2433: No space left on device
> [FAILED] Failed to start Berkeley Internet Name Domain (DNS).
> See 'systemctl status named.service' for details.

Expected behaviour: that is a significant limitation of Kirill's current
implementation.  We have agreed at LSF/MM that he will fix that before
his patchset goes further.  (And different changes needed in my patchset.)

> 
> 
> The /run dir is mounted as tmpfs.
> 
> x86 boot doesn't get such error. And, Hugh's patches don't have such problem.
> 
> 2. I ran my THP test (generated a program with 4MB text section) on both
> x86-64 and ARM64 with yours and Hugh's patches (linux-next tree), I got the
> program execution time reduced by ~12% on x86-64, it looks very impressive.

12% sounds about right for x86.  Some loads have been seen to benefit 17%.

> 
> But, on ARM64, there is just ~3% change, and sometimes huge tmpfs may show
> even worse data than non-hugepage.
> 
> Both yours and Hugh's patches has the same behavior.
> 
> Any idea?

... and in a later posting..,

> 
> It would be better if Kirill and Hugh could share what benchmark they ran and
> how much they got improved since my test case is very simple and may just
> cover a small part of it.

Sorry, I've not run any benchmark myself (prefer to let others get more
objective results), nor run on arm64.  I have no idea what to expect on
arm64 - you need to ask the arm64 guys what hugepage advantage they see
with anon THP or hugetlbfs (and probably need to tell them what machine
you're running on): then expect a similar advantage from either Kirill's
or my huge tmpfs patchset.

Hugh