| 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: <1373065742-9753-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 00:08:47 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
Subject: [PATCH 0/15] Basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing V3
This continues to build on the previous feedback. The results are a mix of
gains and losses but when looking at the losses I think it's also important
to consider the reduced overhead when the patches are applied. I still
have not had the chance to closely review Peter's or Srikar's approach to
scheduling but the tests are queued to do a comparison.
Changelog since V2
o Reshuffle to match Peter's implied preference for layout
o Reshuffle to move private/shared split towards end of series to make it
easier to evaluate the impact
o Use PID information to identify private accesses
o Set the floor for PTE scanning based on virtual address space scan rates
instead of time
o Some locking improvements
o Do not preempt pinned tasks unless they are kernel threads
Changelog since V1
o Scan pages with elevated map count (shared pages)
o Scale scan rates based on the vsz of the process so the sampling of the
task is independant of its size
o Favour moving towards nodes with more faults even if it's not the
preferred node
o Laughably basic accounting of a compute overloaded node when selecting
the preferred node.
o Applied review comments
This series integrates basic scheduler support for automatic NUMA balancing.
It borrows very heavily from Peter Ziljstra's work in "sched, numa, mm:
Add adaptive NUMA affinity support" but deviates too much to preserve
Signed-off-bys. As before, if the relevant authors are ok with it I'll
add Signed-off-bys (or add them yourselves if you pick the patches up).
This is still far from complete and there are known performance gaps
between this series and manual binding (when that is possible). As before,
the intention is not to complete the work but to incrementally improve
mainline and preserve bisectability for any bug reports that crop up. In
some cases performance may be worse unfortunately and when that happens
it will have to be judged if the system overhead is lower and if so,
is it still an acceptable direction as a stepping stone to something better.
Patch 1 adds sysctl documentation
Patch 2 tracks NUMA hinting faults per-task and per-node
Patches 3-5 selects a preferred node at the end of a PTE scan based on what
node incurrent the highest number of NUMA faults. When the balancer
is comparing two CPU it will prefer to locate tasks on their
preferred node.
Patch 6 reschedules a task when a preferred node is selected if it is not
running on that node already. This avoids waiting for the scheduler
to move the task slowly.
Patch 7 adds infrastructure to allow separate tracking of shared/private
pages but treats all faults as if they are private accesses. Laying
it out this way reduces churn later in the series when private
fault detection is introduced
Patch 8 replaces PTE scanning reset hammer and instread increases the
scanning rate when an otherwise settled task changes its
preferred node.
Patch 9 avoids some unnecessary allocation
Patch 10 sets the scan rate proportional to the size of the task being scanned.
Patch 11-12 kicks away some training wheels and scans shared pages and small VMAs.
Patch 13 introduces private fault detection based on the PID of the faulting
process and accounts for shared/private accesses differently
Patch 14 accounts for how many "preferred placed" tasks are running on an node
and attempts to avoid overloading them. This patch is the primary
candidate for replacing with proper load tracking of nodes. This patch
is crude but acts as a basis for comparison
Patch 15 favours moving tasks towards nodes where more faults were incurred
even if it is not the preferred node.
Testing on this is only partial as full tests take a long time to run. A
full specjbb for both single and multi takes over 4 hours. NPB D class
also takes a few hours. With all the kernels in question, it'll take a
weekend to churn through them so here is the shorter tests.
I tested 9 kernels using 3.9.0 as a baseline
o 3.9.0-vanilla vanilla kernel with automatic numa balancing enabled
o 3.9.0-favorpref-v3 Patches 1-9
o 3.9.0-scalescan-v3 Patches 1-10
o 3.9.0-scanshared-v3 Patches 1-12
o 3.9.0-splitprivate-v3 Patches 1-13
o 3.9.0-accountpreferred-v3 Patches 1-14
o 3.9.0-peterz-v3 Patches 1-14 + Peter's scheduling patch
o 3.9.0-srikar-v3 vanilla kernel + Srikar's scheduling patch
o 3.9.0-favorfaults-v3 Patches 1-15
Note that Peters patch has been rebased by me and acts as a replacement
for the crude per-node accounting. Srikar's patch was standalone and I
made to attempt to pick it apart and rebase it on top of the series.
This is SpecJBB running on a 4-socket machine with THP enabled and one JVM
running for the whole system. Only a limited number of clients are executed
to save on time.
specjbb
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanilla favorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
TPut 1 26099.00 ( 0.00%) 23289.00 (-10.77%) 23343.00 (-10.56%) 24450.00 ( -6.32%) 24660.00 ( -5.51%) 24378.00 ( -6.59%) 23294.00 (-10.75%) 24990.00 ( -4.25%) 22938.00 (-12.11%)
TPut 7 187276.00 ( 0.00%) 188696.00 ( 0.76%) 188049.00 ( 0.41%) 188734.00 ( 0.78%) 189033.00 ( 0.94%) 188507.00 ( 0.66%) 187746.00 ( 0.25%) 188660.00 ( 0.74%) 189032.00 ( 0.94%)
TPut 13 318028.00 ( 0.00%) 337735.00 ( 6.20%) 332076.00 ( 4.42%) 325244.00 ( 2.27%) 330248.00 ( 3.84%) 338799.00 ( 6.53%) 333955.00 ( 5.01%) 303900.00 ( -4.44%) 340888.00 ( 7.19%)
TPut 19 368547.00 ( 0.00%) 427211.00 ( 15.92%) 416539.00 ( 13.02%) 383505.00 ( 4.06%) 416156.00 ( 12.92%) 428810.00 ( 16.35%) 435828.00 ( 18.26%) 399560.00 ( 8.41%) 444654.00 ( 20.65%)
TPut 25 377522.00 ( 0.00%) 469175.00 ( 24.28%) 491030.00 ( 30.07%) 412740.00 ( 9.33%) 475783.00 ( 26.03%) 463198.00 ( 22.69%) 504612.00 ( 33.66%) 419442.00 ( 11.10%) 524288.00 ( 38.88%)
TPut 31 347642.00 ( 0.00%) 440729.00 ( 26.78%) 466510.00 ( 34.19%) 381921.00 ( 9.86%) 453361.00 ( 30.41%) 408340.00 ( 17.46%) 476475.00 ( 37.06%) 410060.00 ( 17.95%) 501662.00 ( 44.30%)
TPut 37 313439.00 ( 0.00%) 418485.00 ( 33.51%) 442592.00 ( 41.21%) 352373.00 ( 12.42%) 448875.00 ( 43.21%) 399340.00 ( 27.41%) 457167.00 ( 45.86%) 398125.00 ( 27.02%) 484381.00 ( 54.54%)
TPut 43 291958.00 ( 0.00%) 385404.00 ( 32.01%) 386700.00 ( 32.45%) 336810.00 ( 15.36%) 412089.00 ( 41.15%) 366572.00 ( 25.56%) 418745.00 ( 43.43%) 335165.00 ( 14.80%) 438455.00 ( 50.18%)
First off, note what the shared/private split patch does. Once we start
scanning all pages there is a degradation in performance as the shared
page faults introduce noise to the statistics. Splitting the shared/private
faults restores the performance and the key task in the future is to use
this shared/private information for maximum benefit.
Note that my account-preferred patch that limits the number of tasks that can
run on a node degrades performance in this case where as Peter's patch improves
performance nicely.
Note the performance of favour-faults which moves tasks towards towards
with more faults or resists moving away from nodes with more faults also
improves performance.
Srikar's patch that considers just compute load does improve performance
from the vanilla kernel but not as much as the series does.
Results for this benchmark at least are very positive with indications
that I should ditch Patch 14 and work on Peter's version.
specjbb Peaks
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanilla favorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
Expctd Warehouse 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( 0.00%)
Actual Warehouse 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%) 26.00 ( 0.00%)
Actual Peak Bops 377522.00 ( 0.00%) 469175.00 ( 24.28%) 491030.00 ( 30.07%) 412740.00 ( 9.33%) 475783.00 ( 26.03%) 463198.00 ( 22.69%) 504612.00 ( 33.66%) 419442.00 ( 11.10%) 524288.00 ( 38.88%)
All kernels peaked at the same number of warehouses with the series
performing well overall with the same conclusion that Peter's version of
the compute node overload detection should be used.
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanillafavorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
User 5184.53 5210.17 5174.95 5166.97 5184.01 5185.70 5202.89 5197.41 5175.89
System 59.61 65.68 64.39 61.62 60.77 59.47 61.51 56.02 60.18
Elapsed 254.52 255.01 253.81 255.16 254.19 254.34 254.08 254.89 254.84
No major change.
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanillafavorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate accountpref peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
THP fault alloc 33297 34087 33651 32943 35069 33473 34932 37053 32736
THP collapse alloc 9 14 18 12 11 13 13 10 15
THP splits 3 4 4 2 5 8 2 4 4
THP fault fallback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THP collapse fail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page migrate success 1773768 1769532 1420235 1360864 1310354 1423995 1367669 1927281 1327653
Page migrate failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction pages isolated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction migrate scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction free scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction cost 1841 1836 1474 1412 1360 1478 1419 2000 1378
NUMA PTE updates 17461135 17386539 15022653 14480121 14335180 15379855 14428691 18202363 14282962
NUMA hint faults 85873 77686 75782 79742 79048 90556 79064 178027 76533
NUMA hint local faults 27145 24279 24412 29548 31882 32952 29363 114382 29604
NUMA hint local percent 31 31 32 37 40 36 37 64 38
NUMA pages migrated 1773768 1769532 1420235 1360864 1310354 1423995 1367669 1927281 1327653
AutoNUMA cost 585 543 511 525 520 587 522 1054 507
The series reduced the amount of PTE scanning and migrated less. Interestingly
the percentage of local faults is not changed much so even without comparing
it with an interleaved JVM, there is room for improvement there.
Srikar's patch behaviour is interesting. In updates roughly the same number
of PTEs but incurs more faults with a higher percentage of local faults
even though performance is worse overall. It does indicate that might
have fared better if it was rebased on top and dealt with just calculating
compute node overloading as a potential alternative to Peter's patch.
Next is the autonuma benchmark results. These were only run once so I have no
idea what the variance is. Obviously they could be run multiple times but with
this number of kernels we would die of old age waiting on the results.
autonumabench
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanilla favorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
User NUMA01 52623.86 ( 0.00%) 58607.67 (-11.37%) 56861.80 ( -8.05%) 51173.76 ( 2.76%) 55995.75 ( -6.41%) 58891.91 (-11.91%) 53156.13 ( -1.01%) 42207.06 ( 19.79%) 59405.06 (-12.89%)
User NUMA01_THEADLOCAL 17595.48 ( 0.00%) 18613.09 ( -5.78%) 19832.77 (-12.72%) 19737.98 (-12.18%) 20600.88 (-17.08%) 18716.43 ( -6.37%) 18647.37 ( -5.98%) 17547.60 ( 0.27%) 18129.29 ( -3.03%)
User NUMA02 2043.84 ( 0.00%) 2129.21 ( -4.18%) 2068.72 ( -1.22%) 2091.60 ( -2.34%) 1948.59 ( 4.66%) 2072.05 ( -1.38%) 2035.36 ( 0.41%) 2075.80 ( -1.56%) 2029.90 ( 0.68%)
User NUMA02_SMT 1057.11 ( 0.00%) 1069.20 ( -1.14%) 992.14 ( 6.15%) 1045.40 ( 1.11%) 970.20 ( 8.22%) 1021.87 ( 3.33%) 1027.08 ( 2.84%) 953.90 ( 9.76%) 983.51 ( 6.96%)
System NUMA01 414.17 ( 0.00%) 377.36 ( 8.89%) 338.80 ( 18.20%) 130.60 ( 68.47%) 115.62 ( 72.08%) 158.80 ( 61.66%) 116.45 ( 71.88%) 183.47 ( 55.70%) 404.15 ( 2.42%)
System NUMA01_THEADLOCAL 105.17 ( 0.00%) 98.46 ( 6.38%) 96.87 ( 7.89%) 101.17 ( 3.80%) 101.29 ( 3.69%) 87.57 ( 16.73%) 94.89 ( 9.77%) 95.30 ( 9.38%) 77.63 ( 26.19%)
System NUMA02 9.36 ( 0.00%) 11.21 (-19.76%) 8.92 ( 4.70%) 10.64 (-13.68%) 10.02 ( -7.05%) 9.73 ( -3.95%) 10.57 (-12.93%) 6.46 ( 30.98%) 10.06 ( -7.48%)
System NUMA02_SMT 3.54 ( 0.00%) 4.04 (-14.12%) 2.59 ( 26.84%) 3.23 ( 8.76%) 2.66 ( 24.86%) 3.19 ( 9.89%) 3.70 ( -4.52%) 4.64 (-31.07%) 3.15 ( 11.02%)
Elapsed NUMA01 1201.52 ( 0.00%) 1341.55 (-11.65%) 1304.61 ( -8.58%) 1173.59 ( 2.32%) 1293.92 ( -7.69%) 1338.15 (-11.37%) 1258.95 ( -4.78%) 1008.45 ( 16.07%) 1356.31 (-12.88%)
Elapsed NUMA01_THEADLOCAL 393.91 ( 0.00%) 416.46 ( -5.72%) 449.30 (-14.06%) 449.69 (-14.16%) 475.32 (-20.67%) 449.98 (-14.23%) 431.20 ( -9.47%) 399.82 ( -1.50%) 446.03 (-13.23%)
Elapsed NUMA02 50.30 ( 0.00%) 51.64 ( -2.66%) 49.70 ( 1.19%) 52.03 ( -3.44%) 49.72 ( 1.15%) 50.87 ( -1.13%) 49.59 ( 1.41%) 50.65 ( -0.70%) 50.10 ( 0.40%)
Elapsed NUMA02_SMT 58.48 ( 0.00%) 54.57 ( 6.69%) 61.05 ( -4.39%) 50.51 ( 13.63%) 59.38 ( -1.54%) 47.53 ( 18.72%) 55.17 ( 5.66%) 50.95 ( 12.88%) 47.93 ( 18.04%)
CPU NUMA01 4414.00 ( 0.00%) 4396.00 ( 0.41%) 4384.00 ( 0.68%) 4371.00 ( 0.97%) 4336.00 ( 1.77%) 4412.00 ( 0.05%) 4231.00 ( 4.15%) 4203.00 ( 4.78%) 4409.00 ( 0.11%)
CPU NUMA01_THEADLOCAL 4493.00 ( 0.00%) 4492.00 ( 0.02%) 4435.00 ( 1.29%) 4411.00 ( 1.83%) 4355.00 ( 3.07%) 4178.00 ( 7.01%) 4346.00 ( 3.27%) 4412.00 ( 1.80%) 4081.00 ( 9.17%)
CPU NUMA02 4081.00 ( 0.00%) 4144.00 ( -1.54%) 4180.00 ( -2.43%) 4040.00 ( 1.00%) 3939.00 ( 3.48%) 4091.00 ( -0.25%) 4124.00 ( -1.05%) 4111.00 ( -0.74%) 4071.00 ( 0.25%)
CPU NUMA02_SMT 1813.00 ( 0.00%) 1966.00 ( -8.44%) 1629.00 ( 10.15%) 2075.00 (-14.45%) 1638.00 ( 9.65%) 2156.00 (-18.92%) 1868.00 ( -3.03%) 1881.00 ( -3.75%) 2058.00 (-13.51%)
numa01 had a rocky road through the series. On this machine it is an
adverse workload and interestingly favor faults fares worse with a large
increase in system CPU usage. Srikar's patch shows that this can be much
improved but as it is the adverse case, I am not inclined to condemn the
series and instead consider how the problem can be detected in the future.
numa01_threadlocal is interesting in that performance degraded. The
vanilla kernel very likely running optimally already as this is an ideal
case. While it is possible this is a statistics error, it is far more
likely an impact due to the scan rate adaption because you can see the
bulk of the degradation was introduced in that patch.
numa02 showed no improvement but it should also be already running close
to as quickly as possible.
numa02_smt is interesting though. Overall the series did very well. In the
single jvm specjbb case, Peter's scheduling patch did much better than mine.
In this test, mine performed better and it would be worthwhile figuring
out why that is and if both can be merged in some sensible fashion.
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanillafavorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
THP fault alloc 14325 13843 14457 14618 14165 14814 14629 16792 13308
THP collapse alloc 6 8 2 6 3 8 4 7 7
THP splits 4 5 2 2 2 2 3 4 2
THP fault fallback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THP collapse fail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page migrate success 9020528 5072181 4719346 5360917 5129210 4968068 4550697 7006284 4864309
Page migrate failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction pages isolated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction migrate scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction free scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction cost 9363 5264 4898 5564 5324 5156 4723 7272 5049
NUMA PTE updates 119292401 71557939 70633856 71043501 83412737 77186984 80719110 118076970 84957883
NUMA hint faults 755901 452863 207502 216838 249153 207811 237083 608391 247585
NUMA hint local faults 595478 365390 125907 121476 136318 110254 140220 478856 137721
NUMA hint local percent 78 80 60 56 54 53 59 78 55
NUMA pages migrated 9020528 5072181 4719346 5360917 5129210 4968068 4550697 7006284 4864309
AutoNUMA cost 4785 2861 1621 1683 1927 1673 1836 4001 1925
As all the tests are mashed together it is possible to make specific
conclusions on each testcase. However, in general the series is doing a lot
less work with PTE updates, faults and so on. THe percentage of local faults
varies a lot but this data does not indicate which test case is affected.
I also ran SpecJBB running on with THP enabled and one JVM running per
NUMA node in the system.
specjbb
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanilla favorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splitprivate-v3 accountpreferred-v3 peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
Mean 1 30640.75 ( 0.00%) 29752.00 ( -2.90%) 30475.00 ( -0.54%) 31206.50 ( 1.85%) 31056.75 ( 1.36%) 31131.75 ( 1.60%) 31093.00 ( 1.48%) 30659.25 ( 0.06%) 31105.50 ( 1.52%)
Mean 10 136983.25 ( 0.00%) 140038.00 ( 2.23%) 133589.75 ( -2.48%) 145615.50 ( 6.30%) 143027.50 ( 4.41%) 144137.25 ( 5.22%) 129712.75 ( -5.31%) 138238.25 ( 0.92%) 129383.00 ( -5.55%)
Mean 19 124005.25 ( 0.00%) 119630.25 ( -3.53%) 125307.50 ( 1.05%) 125454.50 ( 1.17%) 124757.75 ( 0.61%) 122126.50 ( -1.52%) 111949.75 ( -9.72%) 121013.25 ( -2.41%) 120418.25 ( -2.89%)
Mean 28 114672.00 ( 0.00%) 106671.00 ( -6.98%) 115164.50 ( 0.43%) 112532.25 ( -1.87%) 114629.50 ( -0.04%) 116116.00 ( 1.26%) 105418.00 ( -8.07%) 112967.00 ( -1.49%) 108037.50 ( -5.79%)
Mean 37 110916.50 ( 0.00%) 102696.50 ( -7.41%) 111580.50 ( 0.60%) 107410.75 ( -3.16%) 104110.75 ( -6.14%) 106203.25 ( -4.25%) 108752.25 ( -1.95%) 108677.50 ( -2.02%) 104177.00 ( -6.08%)
Mean 46 110139.25 ( 0.00%) 103473.75 ( -6.05%) 106920.75 ( -2.92%) 109062.00 ( -0.98%) 107684.50 ( -2.23%) 100882.75 ( -8.40%) 103070.50 ( -6.42%) 102208.50 ( -7.20%) 104402.50 ( -5.21%)
Stddev 1 1002.06 ( 0.00%) 1151.12 (-14.88%) 948.37 ( 5.36%) 714.89 ( 28.66%) 1455.54 (-45.25%) 697.63 ( 30.38%) 1082.10 ( -7.99%) 1507.51 (-50.44%) 737.14 ( 26.44%)
Stddev 10 4656.47 ( 0.00%) 4974.97 ( -6.84%) 6502.35 (-39.64%) 6645.90 (-42.72%) 5881.13 (-26.30%) 3828.53 ( 17.78%) 5799.04 (-24.54%) 4297.12 ( 7.72%) 10885.11 (-133.76%)
Stddev 19 2578.12 ( 0.00%) 1975.51 ( 23.37%) 2563.47 ( 0.57%) 6254.55 (-142.60%) 3401.11 (-31.92%) 2539.02 ( 1.52%) 8162.13 (-216.59%) 1532.98 ( 40.54%) 8479.33 (-228.90%)
Stddev 28 4123.69 ( 0.00%) 2562.60 ( 37.86%) 3188.89 ( 22.67%) 6831.77 (-65.67%) 1378.53 ( 66.57%) 5196.71 (-26.02%) 3942.17 ( 4.40%) 8060.48 (-95.47%) 7675.13 (-86.12%)
Stddev 37 2301.94 ( 0.00%) 4126.45 (-79.26%) 3255.11 (-41.41%) 5492.87 (-138.62%) 4489.53 (-95.03%) 5610.45 (-143.73%) 5047.08 (-119.25%) 1621.31 ( 29.57%) 10608.90 (-360.87%)
Stddev 46 8317.91 ( 0.00%) 8073.31 ( 2.94%) 7647.06 ( 8.07%) 6361.55 ( 23.52%) 3940.12 ( 52.63%) 8185.37 ( 1.59%) 8261.33 ( 0.68%) 3822.28 ( 54.05%) 10296.79 (-23.79%)
TPut 1 122563.00 ( 0.00%) 119008.00 ( -2.90%) 121900.00 ( -0.54%) 124826.00 ( 1.85%) 124227.00 ( 1.36%) 124527.00 ( 1.60%) 124372.00 ( 1.48%) 122637.00 ( 0.06%) 124422.00 ( 1.52%)
TPut 10 547933.00 ( 0.00%) 560152.00 ( 2.23%) 534359.00 ( -2.48%) 582462.00 ( 6.30%) 572110.00 ( 4.41%) 576549.00 ( 5.22%) 518851.00 ( -5.31%) 552953.00 ( 0.92%) 517532.00 ( -5.55%)
TPut 19 496021.00 ( 0.00%) 478521.00 ( -3.53%) 501230.00 ( 1.05%) 501818.00 ( 1.17%) 499031.00 ( 0.61%) 488506.00 ( -1.52%) 447799.00 ( -9.72%) 484053.00 ( -2.41%) 481673.00 ( -2.89%)
TPut 28 458688.00 ( 0.00%) 426684.00 ( -6.98%) 460658.00 ( 0.43%) 450129.00 ( -1.87%) 458518.00 ( -0.04%) 464464.00 ( 1.26%) 421672.00 ( -8.07%) 451868.00 ( -1.49%) 432150.00 ( -5.79%)
TPut 37 443666.00 ( 0.00%) 410786.00 ( -7.41%) 446322.00 ( 0.60%) 429643.00 ( -3.16%) 416443.00 ( -6.14%) 424813.00 ( -4.25%) 435009.00 ( -1.95%) 434710.00 ( -2.02%) 416708.00 ( -6.08%)
TPut 46 440557.00 ( 0.00%) 413895.00 ( -6.05%) 427683.00 ( -2.92%) 436248.00 ( -0.98%) 430738.00 ( -2.23%) 403531.00 ( -8.40%) 412282.00 ( -6.42%) 408834.00 ( -7.20%) 417610.00 ( -5.21%)
This shows a mix of gains and regressions with big differences in the
variation introduced by the favorfaults patch. The stddev is large enough
that the performance may be flat or at least comparable after the series
is applied. I know that performance is massively short of performance
if the four JVMs are hard-bound to each node. Improving this requires
that group of related threads be identified and moved towards the same
node. There are a variety of ways on how something like that could be
implemented although the devil will be in the details for any of them.
o When selecting node with most faults weight the faults by the number
of tasks sharing the same address space. Would not work for multi-process
applications sharing data though.
o If the pid is not matching on a given page then converge for memory as
normal. However, in the load balancer favour moving related tasks with
the task incurring more local faults having greater weight.
o When selecting a CPU on another node to run, select a task B to swap with.
Task B should not be already running on its preferred node and ideally
it should improve its locality when migrated to the new node
etc. Handling any part of the problem has different costs in storage
and complexity. It's a case of working through it and given the likely
complexity, I think it deserves a dedicated series.
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanillafavorpref-v3 scalescan-v3 scanshared-v3 splpriv accountpref peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
User 52899.04 53210.81 53042.21 53328.70 52918.56 53603.58 53063.66 52851.59 52829.96
System 250.42 224.78 201.53 193.12 205.82 214.38 209.86 228.30 211.12
Elapsed 1199.72 1204.36 1197.77 1208.94 1199.23 1223.66 1206.86 1198.51 1205.00
Interestingly though the performance is comparable but system CPU usage
is lower which is something.
3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0 3.9.0
vanilla favorpref-v3 scalescan scanshared-v3 splitpriv-v3 accountpref peterz-v3 srikar-v3 favorfaults-v3
THP fault alloc 65188 66097 67667 66195 68326 69270 67150 60141 63869
THP collapse alloc 97 104 103 101 95 91 104 99 103
THP splits 38 34 35 29 38 39 33 36 31
THP fault fallback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THP collapse fail 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction success 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction failures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page migrate success 14583860 10507899 8023771 7251275 8175290 8268183 8477546 12511430 8686134
Page migrate failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction pages isolated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction migrate scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction free scanned 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compaction cost 15138 10907 8328 7526 8485 8582 8799 12986 9016
NUMA PTE updates 128327468 102978689 76226351 74280333 75229069 77110305 78175561 128407433 80020924
NUMA hint faults 2103190 1745470 1039953 1342325 1344201 1448015 1328751 2068061 1499687
NUMA hint local faults 734136 641359 334299 452808 388403 417083 517108 875830 617246
NUMA hint local percent 34 36 32 33 28 28 38 42 41
NUMA pages migrated 14583860 10507899 8023771 7251275 8175290 8268183 8477546 12511430 8686134
AutoNUMA cost 11691 9647 5885 7369 7402 7936 7352 11476 8223
PTE scan activity is much reduced by the series with with comparable
percentages of local numa hinting faults.
Longer tests are running but this is already a tonne of data and it's well
past Beer O'Clock on a Friday but based on this I think the series mostly
improves matters (exception being NUMA01_THEADLOCAL). The multi-jvm case
needs more work to identify groups of related tasks and migrate them together
but I think that is beyond the scope of this series and is a separate
issue with its own complexities to consider. There is a question whether to
replace Patch 14 with Peter's patch or mash them together. We could always
start with Patch 14 as a comparison point until Peter's version is complete.
Thoughts?
Documentation/sysctl/kernel.txt | 68 +++++++
include/linux/migrate.h | 7 +-
include/linux/mm.h | 59 +++---
include/linux/mm_types.h | 7 +-
include/linux/page-flags-layout.h | 28 +--
include/linux/sched.h | 23 ++-
include/linux/sched/sysctl.h | 1 -
kernel/sched/core.c | 60 ++++++-
kernel/sched/fair.c | 368 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
kernel/sched/sched.h | 17 ++
kernel/sysctl.c | 14 +-
mm/huge_memory.c | 9 +-
mm/memory.c | 17 +-
mm/mempolicy.c | 10 +-
mm/migrate.c | 21 +--
mm/mm_init.c | 18 +-
mm/mmzone.c | 12 +-
mm/mprotect.c | 4 +-
mm/page_alloc.c | 4 +-
19 files changed, 610 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
--
1.8.1.4
--
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