| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110802121733.GA24434@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:17:33 +0200
From: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] mm: per-zone dirty limiting
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:05:10PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:05:59PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > > As dd is variable, I'm rerunning the tests to do 4 iterations and
> > > multiple memory sizes for just xfs and ext4 to see what falls out. It
> > > should take about 14 hours to complete assuming nothing screws up.
> >
> > Awesome, thanks!
> >
>
> While they in fact took about 30 hours to complete, I only got around
> to packaging them up now. Unfortuantely the tests were incomplete as
> I needed the machine back for another use but the results that did
> complete are at http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/hnaz-20110729/
>
> Look for the comparison.html files such as this one
>
> http://www.csn.ul.ie/~mel/postings/hnaz-20110729/global-dhp-512M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext3/hydra/comparison.html
>
> I'm afraid I haven't looked through them in detail.
Mel, thanks a lot for running those tests, you shall be compensated in
finest brewery goods some time.
Here is an attempt:
global-dhp-512M__writeback-reclaimdirty-xfs
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0 3.0.0-lessks
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1 pzdirty-v3r1
1 1054.54 ( 0.00%) 386.65 (172.74%) 375.60 (180.76%) 375.88 (180.55%)
+/- 1.41% 4.56% 3.09% 2.34%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 32.27 29.97 30.65 30.91
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 4220.48 1548.84 1504.64 1505.79
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 720433 392017 317097 343849
Page Outs 27746435 27673017 27619134 27555437
Swap Ins 173563 94196 74844 81954
Swap Outs 115864 100264 86833 70904
Direct pages scanned 3268014 7515 0 1008
Kswapd pages scanned 5351371 12045948 7973273 7923387
Kswapd pages reclaimed 3320848 6498700 6486754 6492607
Direct pages reclaimed 3267145 7243 0 1008
Kswapd efficiency 62% 53% 81% 81%
Kswapd velocity 1267.953 7777.400 5299.123 5261.947
Direct efficiency 99% 96% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 774.323 4.852 0.000 0.669
Percentage direct scans 37% 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 130541 100265 86833 70904
Page writes file 14677 1 0 0
Page writes anon 115864 100264 86833 70904
Page reclaim invalidate 0 3120195 0 0
Slabs scanned 8448 8448 8576 8448
Direct inode steals 0 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 1828 1837 2056 1918
Kswapd skipped wait 0 1 0 0
Compaction stalls 2 0 0 0
Compaction success 1 0 0 0
Compaction failures 1 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0 0
While file writes from reclaim are prevented by both patches on their
own, perzonedirty decreases the amount of anonymous pages swapped out
because reclaim is always able to make progress instead of wasting its
file scan budget on shuffling dirty pages. With lesskswapd in
addition, swapping is throttled in reclaim by the ratio of dirty pages
to isolated pages.
The runtime improvements speak for both perzonedirty and
perzonedirty+lesskswapd. Given the swap upside and increased reclaim
efficiency, the combination of both appears to be the most desirable.
global-dhp-512M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext3
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 1762.23 ( 0.00%) 987.73 (78.41%) 983.82 (79.12%)
+/- 4.35% 2.24% 1.56%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 46.36 44.07 46
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 7053.28 3956.60 3940.39
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 965236 661660 629972
Page Outs 27984332 27922904 27715628
Swap Ins 231181 158799 137341
Swap Outs 151395 142150 88644
Direct pages scanned 2749884 11138 1315072
Kswapd pages scanned 6340921 12591169 6599999
Kswapd pages reclaimed 3915635 6576549 5264406
Direct pages reclaimed 2749002 10877 1314842
Kswapd efficiency 61% 52% 79%
Kswapd velocity 899.003 3182.320 1674.961
Direct efficiency 99% 97% 99%
Direct velocity 389.873 2.815 333.742
Percentage direct scans 30% 0% 16%
Page writes by reclaim 620698 142155 88645
Page writes file 469303 5 1
Page writes anon 151395 142150 88644
Page reclaim invalidate 0 3717819 0
Slabs scanned 8704 8576 33408
Direct inode steals 0 0 466
Kswapd inode steals 1872 2107 2115
Kswapd skipped wait 0 1 0
Compaction stalls 2 0 1
Compaction success 1 0 0
Compaction failures 1 0 1
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
perzonedirty the highest reclaim efficiencies, the lowest writeout
counts from reclaim, and the shortest runtime.
While file writes are practically gone with both lesskswapd and
perzonedirty on their own, the latter also reduces swapping by 40%.
I expect the combination of both series to have the best results here
as well.
global-dhp-512M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext4
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 405.42 ( 0.00%) 410.48 (-1.23%) 401.77 ( 0.91%)
+/- 3.62% 4.45% 2.82%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 31.25 31.4 31.37
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 1624.60 1644.56 1609.67
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 354364 403612 332812
Page Outs 27607792 27709096 27536412
Swap Ins 84065 96398 79219
Swap Outs 83096 108478 65342
Direct pages scanned 112 0 56
Kswapd pages scanned 12207898 12063862 7615377
Kswapd pages reclaimed 6492490 6504947 6486946
Direct pages reclaimed 112 0 56
Kswapd efficiency 53% 53% 85%
Kswapd velocity 7514.402 7335.617 4731.018
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 0.069 0.000 0.035
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 3076760 108483 65342
Page writes file 2993664 5 0
Page writes anon 83096 108478 65342
Page reclaim invalidate 0 3291697 0
Slabs scanned 8448 8448 8448
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 1979 1993 1945
Kswapd skipped wait 1 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
With lesskswapd, both runtime and swapouts increased. My only guess
is that in this configuration, the writepage calls actually improve
things to a certain extent.
Otherwise, nothing stands out to me here, and the same as above
applies wrt runtime and reclaim efficiency being the best with
perzonedirty.
global-dhp-1024M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext3
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 1291.74 ( 0.00%) 1034.56 (24.86%) 1023.04 (26.26%)
+/- 2.77% 1.98% 4.42%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 42.41 41.97 43.49
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 5176.73 4142.26 4096.57
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 27856 24392 23292
Page Outs 27360416 27352736 27352700
Swap Ins 1 6 0
Swap Outs 2 39 32
Direct pages scanned 5899 0 0
Kswapd pages scanned 6500396 7948564 6014854
Kswapd pages reclaimed 6008477 6012586 6013794
Direct pages reclaimed 5899 0 0
Kswapd efficiency 92% 75% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1255.695 1918.895 1468.266
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 1.140 0.000 0.000
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 181091 39 32
Page writes file 181089 0 0
Page writes anon 2 39 32
Page reclaim invalidate 0 1843189 0
Slabs scanned 3840 3840 4096
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
Writes from reclaim are reduced to practically nothing by both
patchsets, but perzonedirty standalone wins in runtime and reclaim
efficiency.
global-dhp-1024M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext4
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 434.46 ( 0.00%) 432.42 ( 0.47%) 429.15 ( 1.24%)
+/- 2.62% 2.15% 2.47%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 29.44 29.37 29.64
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 1740.46 1732.34 1719.08
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 15216 14728 12936
Page Outs 27274352 27274144 27274236
Swap Ins 12 0 7
Swap Outs 13 0 29
Direct pages scanned 0 0 0
Kswapd pages scanned 8151970 7662106 5989819
Kswapd pages reclaimed 5990667 5987919 5988646
Direct pages reclaimed 0 0 0
Kswapd efficiency 73% 78% 99%
Kswapd velocity 4683.802 4422.980 3484.317
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 0.000 0.000 0.000
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 1889005 0 29
Page writes file 1888992 0 0
Page writes anon 13 0 29
Page reclaim invalidate 0 1574594 0
Slabs scanned 3968 3840 3968
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
As with ext3, perzonedirty is best in overall runtime and reclaim
efficiency.
global-dhp-1024M__writeback-reclaimdirty-xfs
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 757.46 ( 0.00%) 387.51 (95.47%) 381.90 (98.34%)
+/- 3.03% 1.41% 1.13%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 28.68 27.86 29.25
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 3032.05 1552.22 1529.82
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 23325 13801 13733
Page Outs 27277838 27271665 27272055
Swap Ins 1 0 0
Swap Outs 24 0 58
Direct pages scanned 37729 0 0
Kswapd pages scanned 6340969 7643093 5994387
Kswapd pages reclaimed 5959043 5990117 5993349
Direct pages reclaimed 37388 0 0
Kswapd efficiency 93% 78% 99%
Kswapd velocity 2091.314 4923.975 3918.361
Direct efficiency 99% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 12.443 0.000 0.000
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 7148 0 58
Page writes file 7124 0 0
Page writes anon 24 0 58
Page reclaim invalidate 0 1552818 0
Slabs scanned 4224 3968 3968
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
As with ext3 and ext4, perzonedirty is best in overall runtime and
reclaim efficiency.
global-dhp-4608M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext3
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 1274.37 ( 0.00%) 1204.00 ( 5.84%) 1317.79 (-3.29%)
+/- 2.02% 2.03% 3.05%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 43.93 44.4 45.85
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 5130.22 4824.17 5278.84
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 44004 43704 44492
Page Outs 27391592 27386240 27390108
Swap Ins 6968 5855 6091
Swap Outs 8846 8024 8065
Direct pages scanned 0 0 115384
Kswapd pages scanned 4234168 4656846 4105795
Kswapd pages reclaimed 3899101 3893500 3776056
Direct pages reclaimed 0 0 115347
Kswapd efficiency 92% 83% 91%
Kswapd velocity 825.338 965.315 777.784
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 99%
Direct velocity 0.000 0.000 21.858
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 2%
Page writes by reclaim 42555 8024 40622
Page writes file 33709 0 32557
Page writes anon 8846 8024 8065
Page reclaim invalidate 0 586463 0
Slabs scanned 3712 3840 3840
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
Here, perzonedirty fails to ensure enough clean pages in what I guess
is a small Normal zone on top of the DMA32 zone. The
(not-yet-optimized) per-zone dirty checks cost CPU time but they do
not pay off and dirty pages are still encountered by reclaim.
Mel, can you say how big exactly the Normal zone is with this setup?
My theory is that the closer (file_pages - dirty_pages) is to the high
watermark which kswapd tries to balance to, the more likely it is to
run into dirty pages. And to my knowledge, these tests are run with a
non-standard 40% dirty ratio, which lowers the threshold at which
perzonedirty falls apart. Per-zone dirty limits should probably take
the high watermark into account.
This does not explain the regression to me, however, if the Normal
zone here is about the same size as the DMA32 zone in the 512M tests
above, for which perzonedirty was an unambiguous improvement.
What makes me wonder, is that in addition, something in perzonedirty
makes kswapd less efficient in the 4G tests, which is the opposite
effect it had in all other setups. This increases direct reclaim
invocations against the preferred Normal zone. The higher pressure
could also explain why reclaim rushes through the clean pages and runs
into dirty pages quicker.
Does anyone have a theory about what might be going on here?
The tests with other filesystems on 4G memory look similarly bleak for
perzonedirty:
global-dhp-4608M__writeback-reclaimdirty-ext4
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 396.85 ( 0.00%) 437.61 (-9.31%) 404.65 (-1.93%)
+/- 13.10% 16.04% 16.35%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 30.46 30.52 32.28
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 1591.42 1754.49 1622.63
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 37316 38984 36816
Page Outs 27304668 27305952 27307584
Swap Ins 6705 6728 6840
Swap Outs 7989 7911 8431
Direct pages scanned 0 0 0
Kswapd pages scanned 4627064 4644718 4618129
Kswapd pages reclaimed 3883654 3891597 3878173
Direct pages reclaimed 0 0 0
Kswapd efficiency 83% 83% 83%
Kswapd velocity 2907.507 2647.332 2846.076
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 100%
Direct velocity 0.000 0.000 0.000
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 0%
Page writes by reclaim 586753 7911 588292
Page writes file 578764 0 579861
Page writes anon 7989 7911 8431
Page reclaim invalidate 0 591028 0
Slabs scanned 3840 3840 4096
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
global-dhp-4608M__writeback-reclaimdirty-xfs
SIMPLE WRITEBACK
simple-writeback writeback-3.0.0 writeback-3.0.0
3.0.0-vanilla lesskswapd-v3r1 perzonedirty-v1r1
1 531.54 ( 0.00%) 404.88 (31.28%) 546.32 (-2.71%)
+/- 1.77% 7.06% 1.01%
MMTests Statistics: duration
User/Sys Time Running Test (seconds) 29.35 30.04 30.63
Total Elapsed Time (seconds) 2129.69 1623.11 2188.73
MMTests Statistics: vmstat
Page Ins 38329 37173 35117
Page Outs 27307040 27304636 27305927
Swap Ins 6469 6239 5138
Swap Outs 8292 8299 7934
Direct pages scanned 0 0 117901
Kswapd pages scanned 4197481 4630492 4060306
Kswapd pages reclaimed 3880444 3882479 3767544
Direct pages reclaimed 0 0 117872
Kswapd efficiency 92% 83% 92%
Kswapd velocity 1970.935 2852.852 1855.097
Direct efficiency 100% 100% 99%
Direct velocity 0.000 0.000 53.867
Percentage direct scans 0% 0% 2%
Page writes by reclaim 9667 8299 9249
Page writes file 1375 0 1315
Page writes anon 8292 8299 7934
Page reclaim invalidate 0 575703 0
Slabs scanned 3840 3712 4352
Direct inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 0 0 0
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0
Compaction pages moved 0 0 0
Compaction move failure 0 0 0
I am doubly confused because I ran similar tests with 4G memory and
got contradicting results. Will rerun those to make sure.
Comments?
--
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