| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:25:17 +0000
From: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
epasch@...ibm.com, SCHILLIG@...ibm.com,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
christof.schmitt@...ibm.com, thoss@...ibm.com, hare@...e.de,
gregkh@...ell.com
Subject: Re: Performance regression in scsi sequential throughput (iozone)
due to "e084b - page-allocator: preserve PFN ordering when
__GFP_COLD is set"
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 04:46:53PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>
>
> Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:11:24PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> >>> 2. Test with the patch below rmqueue_bulk-fewer-parameters to see if the
> >>> number of parameters being passed is making some unexpected large
> >>> difference
> >> BINGO - this definitely hit something.
> >> This experimental patch does two things - on one hand it closes the race we had:
> >>
> >> 4 THREAD READ 8 THREAD READ 16 THREAD READ %ofcalls
> >> perf_count_congestion_wait 13 27 52
> >> perf_count_call_congestion_wait_from_alloc_pages_high_priority 0 0 0
> >> perf_count_call_congestion_wait_from_alloc_pages_slowpath 13 27 52 99.52%
> >> perf_count_pages_direct_reclaim 30867 56811 131552
> >> perf_count_failed_pages_direct_reclaim 14 24 52
> >> perf_count_failed_pages_direct_reclaim_but_progress 14 21 52 0.04% !!!
> >>
> >> On the other hand we see that the number of direct_reclaim calls increased by ~x4.
> >>
> >> I assume (might be totally wrong) that the x4 increase of direct_reclaim calls could be caused by the fact that before we used higher orders which worked on x4 number of pages at once.
> >
> > But the order parameter was always passed as constant 0 by the caller?
>
> Uh - I didn't see that in the first look - you're right.
> So the x4 in direct_reclaim calls are not caused by e.g. missing order information. Thanks for spotting this.
>
> >
> >> This leaves me with two ideas what the real issue could be:
> >> 1. either really the 6th parameter as this is the first one that needs to go on stack and that way might open a race and rob gcc a big pile of optimization chances
> >
> > It must be something to do with code generation AFAIKS. I'm surprised
> > the function isn't inlined, giving exactly the same result regardless
> > of the patch.
>
> after checking asm I can tell that rmqueue_bulk is inlined.
> Therefore the test to inline it explicitly as requested in another mail can be considered negligible.
Well, this is good at least. The expectation was that it was getting
automatically inlined but I'd stopped expecting anything as this problem
is weird.
> It actually boils down to something different in Mels patch - see below.
>
> > Unlikely to be a correctness issue with code generation, but I'm
> > really surprised that a small difference in performance could have
> > such a big (and apparently repeatable) effect on behaviour like this.
> >
> > What's the assembly look like?
> >
>
> Line 214763
> This is the preparation of the __mod_zone_page_state call from rmqueue_bulk which is inlined into
> get_page_from_freelist.
>
> !ORDER CHANGED FOR READABILITY!
> FAST SLOW
> lgr %r2,%r11 #parm 1 from r11 lgr %r2, %r11 #parm 1 from r11 - same
> lghi %r3,0 #parm 2 = 0 const lghi %r3,0 #parm 2 = 0 - same
> lghi %r4,-1 #parm 3 = -1 const lcr %r4,%r12 #parm 3 as complement of r12?
> lgfr %r4,%r4 #parm 3 - clear upper 32 bit?
I'm not an s390 assembler expert but from the (only) reference I found.
LGHI - loads a half word (16 bits) to a 64 bit
to -1 into register 4
LCR - load the comlpement of count (i.e. -count)
LGFR - load a 64 register with a 32 value, no idea if this clears the
upper bits or not.
So, they are doing very different things here.... err, crap, because I
broke it. The patch to eliminate the parameter is wrong
- __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(i << order));
+ __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -1);
should have been
- __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(i << order));
+ __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -i);
> brasl #call brasl #call
>
> => This is most probably this part of Mel's patch:
> 23 @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@
> 24 set_page_private(page, migratetype);
> 25 list = &page->lru;
> 26 }
> 27 - __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(i << order));
> 28 + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -1);
> 29 spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> 30 return i;
> 31 }
>
> -> doesn't look too important, but to be sure we can build an executable with
> just this change, but still passing order to rmqueue_bulk - see below.
>
It's important, it's broken. That -1 should be -i. Can you test with
that fixed? I'm very sorry.
> Line 214800
> Differend end of the function. In Slow path there is a check to %r4 and
> dependent two different jump targets inside get_page_from_freelist, while in
> the fast version there is only an unconditional jump (both after a
> _raw_spin_lock_wait).
>
> FAST SLOW
> brasl # call _raw_spin_lock_wait brasl # _raw_spin_lock_wait
> j 1e6294 get_page_from_freelist lg %r4,288(%r15) # from stack
> ltgr %r4,%r4 # compare
> jne 1e62a2 get_page_from_freelist
> lhi %r12,0 # new call gets r12 @ 0 (GOT?)
> j 1e6340 get_page_from_freelist
>
> The rest is the same. So what is left is that the slow variant has a new branch
> back in to get_page_from_freelist with r12 set to zero. This jump wents directly
> after the also new lcr call seen in the first difference and might therfore be
> related to that change.
>
> Now I first thought it might not be rmqueue_bulk that misses optimization, but
> __mod_zone_page_state - but that one looks the same in both cases.
>
> Therefore I took a shot for 2.6.32 with just that snippet above applied
> (__mod_zone_page_state call without order which should be fine as we know it
> is 0 in all cases). > And it is interesting to see that this snippet alone
> is enough to fix throughput and the direct_reclaim -> progress&!page ratio.
Unfortunately, it's because I broke the free counters in that patch so
we are probably breaking watermarks. I imagine the counters in
/proc/vmstat are very funny looking.
>
> The differences in asm are pretty much the same, as before rmqueue_bulk was already inlined the actually intended change to its parameters was negligible.
> I wondered if it would be important if that is a constant value (-1) or if the reason was caused by that shift. So I tried:
>
> 23 @@ -965,7 +965,7 @@
> 24 set_page_private(page, migratetype);
> 25 list = &page->lru;
> 26 }
> 27 - __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -(i << order));
> 28 + __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -i);
> 29 spin_unlock(&zone->lock);
> 30 return i;
> 31 }
>
> Now that one has still the issue of the very huge throughput loss and the bad ratio of driect_reclaims leading into congestion_wait.
> Now as far as I can see that - oh so important - "-i" or "-1" ends up in zone_page_state_add as variable x:
> static inline void zone_page_state_add(long x, struct zone *zone,
> enum zone_stat_item item)
> {
> atomic_long_add(x, &zone->vm_stat[item]);
> atomic_long_add(x, &vm_stat[item]);
> }
>
> I guess the intention there is to update the zone with the number of pages freed - and I also guess that -1 as constant might be wrong there.
It is.
> That would also explain some weird output I saw like this after boot:
> h37lp01:~ # cat /proc/meminfo
> MemTotal: 251216 kB
> MemFree: 483460 kB bigger than total
>
> BUT, and that is now again open for discussion - "__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_FREE_PAGES, -1)" even being wrong - fixed the issue in terms of throughput and the congestion_waits as good as reverting e084b+5f8dcc21!
It "fixes" it only by not calling direct reclaim when it should :(
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists