| 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: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:09:48 +0100
From: Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
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"
Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 10:55:08AM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>> Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 04:46:53PM +0100, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> It "fixes" it only by not calling direct reclaim when it should :(
>>> yeah as we both realized -1 was not right so it was more a crazy workaround :-)
>>>
>>> Anyway after that being a dead end again I dug even deeper into the details of direct_reclaim - I think we can agree that out of the counters we already know the race between try_to_free making progress and get_page not getting a page causing the congestion_wait is source of the issue.
>>>
>>> So what I tried to bring some more light into all that was extending my perf counters to track a few more details in direct_reclaim.
>>> Two patches are attached and apply after the other three already available in that thread.
>>> The intention is
>>> a) to track the time
>>> a1) spent in try_to_free_pages
>>> a2) consumed after try_to_free_pages until get_page_from_freelist
>>> a3) spent in get_pages_from_freelist
>>> b1) after seeing that order!=0 -> drain_all_pages I wondered if that might differ even all calls look like they have zero
>>> b2) tracking the average amount of pages freed by try_to_free_pages for fast path and slow path (progres&!page)
>>>
>>> Naming convention (otherwise it might get confusing here)
>>> Good case - the scenario e.g. with e084b and 5f8dcc21 reverted resulting in high throughput and a low ratio of direct_reclaim running into progress&!page
>>> Bad case - the scenario e.g. on a clean 2.6.32
>>> Fast path - direct reclaim calls that did not run into progress&!page
>>> Slow path - direct reclaim calls that ran into progress&!page ending up in a long congestion_wait and therefore called "slow" path
>>>
>>> Mini summary of what we had before in huge tables:
>>> fast path slow path
>>> GOOD CASE ~98% ~1-3%
>>> BAD CASE ~70% ~30%
>>> -> leading to throughput impact of e.g. 600 mb/s with 16 iozone threads (worse with even more threads)
>>>
>>> Out of the numbers I got the following things might help us to create a new approach to a solution.
>>> The timings showed that that the so called slow case is actually much faster passing though direct_reclaim in bad case.
>>>
>>> GOOD CASE duration
>>> a1 Fast-avg-duration_pre_ttf_2_post_ttf 164099
>>> a2 Fast-avg-duration_post_ttf_2_pre_get_page 459
>>> a3 Fast-avg-duration_pre_get_page_2_post_get_page 346
>>> a1 Slow-avg-duration_pre_ttf_2_post_ttf 127621
>>> a2 Slow-avg-duration_post_ttf_2_pre_get_page 1957
>>> a3 Slow-avg-duration_pre_get_page_2_post_get_page 256
>>> BAD CASE duration deviation to good case in %
>>> a1 Fast-avg-duration_pre_ttf_2_post_ttf 122921 -25.09%
>>> a2 Fast-avg-duration_post_ttf_2_pre_get_page 521 13.53%
>>> a3 Fast-avg-duration_pre_get_page_2_post_get_page 244 -29.55%
>>> a1 Slow-avg-duration_pre_ttf_2_post_ttf 109740 -14.01%
>>> a2 Slow-avg-duration_post_ttf_2_pre_get_page 250 -87.18%
>>> a3 Slow-avg-duration_pre_get_page_2_post_get_page 117 -54.16%
>>>
>>> That means that in the bad case the execution is much faster. Especially in the case that eventually runs into the slow path try_to_free is 14% faster, more important the time between try_to_free and get_pages is 87%! faster => less than a fifth and finally get_page is 54% faster, but that is probably just failing in an almost empty list which is fast^^.
>>>
>>> As I checked order which always was zero the time is not spent in drain_all_pages and the only other thing left might be cond_resched ?!
>>> Everything else are a few assignments so it can't be much else.
>>> But why would e.g. not running into schedule in cond_resched cause get_pages to not find anything - I don't know and I would expect it should be the other way around - the faster you get from free to get the more pages should be left.
>> THe reason here is probably the the fact that in the bad case a lot of
>> processes are waiting on congestion_wait and are therefore not runnnable
>> and that way not scheduled via cond_resched.
>>
>> I'll test this theory today or tomorrow with cond_resched in
>> direct_reclaim commented out and expect almost no difference.
>>
>>> I thought the progress try_to_free_pages is doing might be important as well so I took numbers for that too.
>>> From those I see that the good case as well as the bad case has an average of 62 pages freed in fast path.
>>> But in slow path they start to differ - while the good case that is running only seldom in that path anyway frees an average of 1.46 pages (that might be the thing causing it not getting a page eventually) in the bad case it makes a progress of avg 37 pages even in slow path.
>>>
>>> PAGES-FREED fast path slow path
>>> GOOD CASE ~62 ~1.46
>>> BAD CASE ~62 ~37
>> 5f8dcc21 introduced per migrate type pcp lists, is it possible that we
>> run in a scenario where try_to_free frees a lot of pages via, but of the
>> wrong migrate type?
>
> It's possible but the window is small. When a threshold is reached on the
> PCP lists, they get drained to the buddy lists and later picked up again
> by __rmqueue_fallback(). I had considered the possibility of pages of the
> wrong type being on the PCP lists which led to the patch "page-allocator:
> Fallback to other per-cpu lists when the target list is empty and memory is
> low" but you reported it made no difference even when fallback was allowed
> with high watermarks.
> [...]
Today I created rather huge debug logs - I'll spare everyone with too
much detail.
Eventually it comes down to some kind of cat /proc/zoneinfo like output
extended to list all things per migrate type too.
From that I still think there should be plenty of pages to get the
allocation through, as it was suggested by the high amount of pages
freed by try_to_free.
Due to that I tried calling a second get_page_from_freelist after the
first failing one and after the statistic output which showed me there
wer enough pages available.
Even that second one failed - but this is good, that allows me to run
that second call with a kind of "debugthis" parameter which I'll run
tomorrow.
If anyone wants the full 6.2M of that data let me know, but I think the
step by step debug of the second try will give us much smaller and
better insights to discuss about.
More about that tomorrow,
Christian
P.S. Just one output of it here from a 16 thread read case:
### extended zoneinfo after failed direct reclaim ###
Progress just made in try_to_free 32
Current allocation order 0
Current allocation gfp_flags 201da GFP_COLD '1'
Current allocation migrate type '2'
Current cpu id 0
zone DMA
zni: pages_free 503
min 508
low 635
high 762
scanned 96
spanned 65536
present 64640
nr_free_pages 503
nr_inactive_anon 1536
nr_active_anon 1480
nr_inactive_file 33197
nr_active_file 9492
nr_unevictable 3016
nr_mlock 3016
nr_anon_pages 5188
nr_mapped 2295
nr_file_pages 43714
nr_dirty 206
nr_writeback 0
nr_slab_reclaimable 2762
nr_slab_unreclaimable 5368
nr_page_table_pages 151
nr_kernel_stack 215
nr_unstable 0
nr_bounce 0
nr_vmscan_write 476
nr_writeback_temp 0
nr_isolated_anon 0
nr_isolated_file 32
nr_shmem 62
protection: (0,0,0)
Free areas:
Order 0 - nr_free 198 (matching 198 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 198
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
d get_page_from_freelist fail
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 1 - nr_free 2 (matching 4 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 1
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 1*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 2 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 3 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 4 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 5 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 6 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 7 - nr_free 0 (matching 0 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
MIGRATE_RESERVE 0
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
Order 8 - nr_free 1 (matching 256 order 0 pages)
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
d get_page_from_freelist fail
MIGRATE_RESERVE 1
MIGRATE_ISOLATE 0
pagesets
cpu: 0 (current cpu)
count: 46
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 46*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 1
count: 77
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 77*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 2
count: 10
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 10*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 3
count: 8
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 8*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 4
count: 11
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 11*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 5
count: 74
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 74*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 6
count: 65
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 65*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
cpu: 7
count: 0
high: 90
batch: 15
MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE 0
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE 0
MIGRATE_MOVABLE 0*
vm_stats_threshold: 16
all_unreclaimable: 0
prev_priority: 10
start_pfn: 0
inactive_ratio: 1
--
Grüsse / regards, Christian Ehrhardt
IBM Linux Technology Center, Open Virtualization
--
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