Re: [RFC 0/6] x86: prefetch_page() vDSO call
From: Nadav Amit
Date: Thu Feb 25 2021 - 13:02:32 EST
>
On Feb 25, 2021, at 9:32 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 04:56:50PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 25, 2021, at 4:16 AM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>
>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 11:29:04PM -0800, Nadav Amit wrote:
>
>>> Just as applications can use prefetch instructions to overlap
>
>>> computations and memory accesses, applications may want to overlap the
>
>>> page-faults and compute or overlap the I/O accesses that are required
>
>>> for page-faults of different pages.
>
>>
>
>> Isn't this madvise(MADV_WILLNEED)?
>
>
>
> Good point that I should have mentioned. In a way prefetch_page() a
>
> combination of mincore() and MADV_WILLNEED.
>
>
>
> There are 4 main differences from MADV_WILLNEED:
>
>
>
> 1. Much lower invocation cost if the readahead is not needed: this allows
>
> to prefetch pages more abundantly.
>
>
That seems like something that could be fixed in libc -- if we add a
>
page prefetch vdso call, an application calling posix_madvise() could
>
be implemented by calling this fast path. Assuming the performance
>
increase justifies this extra complexity.
>
>
> 2. Return value: return value tells you whether the page is accessible.
>
> This makes it usable for coroutines, for instance. In this regard the
>
> call is more similar to mincore() than MADV_WILLNEED.
>
>
I don't quite understand the programming model you're describing here.
>
>
> 3. The PTEs are mapped if the pages are already present in the
>
> swap/page-cache, preventing an additional page-fault just to map them.
>
>
We could enhance madvise() to do this, no?
>
>
> 4. Avoiding heavy-weight reclamation on low memory (this may need to
>
> be selective, and can be integrated with MADV_WILLNEED).
>
>
Likewise.
>
>
I don't want to add a new Linux-specific call when there's already a
>
POSIX interface that communicates the exact same thing. The return
>
value seems like the only problem.
I agree that this call does not have to be exposed to the application.
I am not sure there is a lot of extra complexity now, but obviously
some evaluations are needed.