Search for: All records

As the volume of data processed by applications has increased, considerable attention has been paid to data address translation overheads, leading to the widespread use of larger page sizes (“superpages”) and multi-level translation lookaside buffers (TLBs). However, far less attention has been paid to instruction address translation and its relation to TLB and pipeline structure. In prior work, we quantified the impact of using code superpages on a variety of widely used applications, ranging from compilers to web user-interface frameworks, and the impact of sharing page table pages for executables and shared libraries. Within this article, we augment those results by first uncovering the effects that microarchitectural differences between Intel Skylake and AMD Zen+, particularly their different TLB organizations, have on instruction address translation overhead. This analysis provides some key insights into the microarchitectural design decisions that impact the cost of instruction address translation. First, a lower-level (level 2) TLB that has both instruction and data mappings competing for space within the same structure allows better overall performance and utilization when using code superpages. Code superpages not only reduce instruction address translation overhead but also indirectly reduce data address translation overhead. In fact, for a few applications, the use of just a few code superpages has a larger impact on overall performance than the use of a much larger number of data superpages. Second, a level 1 (L1) TLB with separate structures for different page sizes may require careful tuning of the superpage promotion policy for code, and a correspondingly suboptimal utilization of the level 2 TLB. In particular, increasing the number of superpages when the size of the L1 superpage structure is small may result in more L1 TLB misses for some applications. Moreover, on some microarchitectures, the cost of these misses can be highly variable, because replacement is delayed until all of the in-flight instructions mapped by the victim entry are retired. Hence, more superpage promotions can result in a performance regression. Finally, our findings also make a case for first-class OS support for superpages on ordinary files containing executables and shared libraries, as well as a more aggressive superpage policy for code. 

State-of-the-art systems, whether in servers or desktops, provide ample computational and storage resources to allow multiple simultaneously executing potentially parallel applications. However, performance tends to be unpredictable, being a function of algorithmic design, resource allocation choices, and hardware resource limitations. In this article, we introduce MAPPER, a manager of application performance via parallel efficiency regulation. MAPPER uses a privileged daemon to monitor (using hardware performance counters) and coordinate all participating applications by making two coupled decisions: the degree of parallelism to allow each application to improve system efficiency while guaranteeing quality of service (QoS), and which specific CPU cores to schedule applications on. The QoS metric may be chosen by the application and could be in terms of execution time, throughput, or tail latency, relative to the maximum performance achievable on the machine. We demonstrate that using a normalized parallel efficiency metric allows comparison across and cooperation among applications to guarantee their required QoS. While MAPPER may be used without application or runtime modification, use of a simple interface to communicate application-level knowledge improves MAPPER’s efficacy. Using a QoS guarantee of 85% of the IPC achieved with a fair share of resources on the machine, MAPPER achieves up to 3.3 \( \times \) speedup relative to unmodified Linux and runtime systems, with an average improvement of 17% in our test cases. At the same time, MAPPER violates QoS for only 2% of the applications (compared to 23% for Linux), while placing much tighter bounds on the worst case. MAPPER relieves hardware bottlenecks via task-to-CPU placement and allocates more CPU contexts to applications that exhibit higher parallel efficiency while guaranteeing QoS, resulting in both individual application performance predictability and overall system efficiency.