| 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: <52DAFAC7.7080307@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:05:59 -0800
From: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
To: riel@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
CC: linux-mm@...ck.org, peterz@...radead.org, mgorman@...e.de,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] pseudo-interleaving for automatic NUMA balancing
On 1/17/2014 1:12 PM, riel@...hat.com wrote:
> The current automatic NUMA balancing code base has issues with
> workloads that do not fit on one NUMA load. Page migration is
> slowed down, but memory distribution between the nodes where
> the workload runs is essentially random, often resulting in a
> suboptimal amount of memory bandwidth being available to the
> workload.
>
> In order to maximize performance of workloads that do not fit in one NUMA
> node, we want to satisfy the following criteria:
> 1) keep private memory local to each thread
> 2) avoid excessive NUMA migration of pages
> 3) distribute shared memory across the active nodes, to
> maximize memory bandwidth available to the workload
>
> This patch series identifies the NUMA nodes on which the workload
> is actively running, and balances (somewhat lazily) the memory
> between those nodes, satisfying the criteria above.
>
> As usual, the series has had some performance testing, but it
> could always benefit from more testing, on other systems.
>
> Changes since v1:
> - fix divide by zero found by Chegu Vinod
> - improve comment, as suggested by Peter Zijlstra
> - do stats calculations in task_numa_placement in local variables
>
>
> Some performance numbers, with two 40-warehouse specjbb instances
> on an 8 node system with 10 CPU cores per node, using a pre-cleanup
> version of these patches, courtesy of Chegu Vinod:
>
> numactl manual pinning
> spec1.txt: throughput = 755900.20 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec2.txt: throughput = 754914.40 SPECjbb2005 bops
>
> NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, with patches)
> spec1.txt: throughput = 706439.84 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec2.txt: throughput = 729347.75 SPECjbb2005 bops
>
> NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, without patches)
> spec1.txt: throughput = 667988.47 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec2.txt: throughput = 638220.45 SPECjbb2005 bops
>
> No Automatic NUMA and NO-pinning results
> spec1.txt: throughput = 544120.97 SPECjbb2005 bops
> spec2.txt: throughput = 453553.41 SPECjbb2005 bops
>
>
> My own performance numbers are not as relevant, since I have been
> running with a more hostile workload on purpose, and I have run
> into a scheduler issue that caused the workload to run on only
> two of the four NUMA nodes on my test system...
>
> .
>
Acked-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@...com>
----
Here are some results using the v2 version of the patches
on an 8 socket box using SPECjbb2005 as a workload :
I) Eight 1-socket wide instances(10 warehouse threads each) :
Without
patches With patches
-------------------- ----------------
a) numactl pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 270620.04 273675.10
spec2.txt: throughput = 274115.33 272845.17
spec3.txt: throughput = 277830.09 272057.33
spec4.txt: throughput = 270898.52 270670.54
spec5.txt: throughput = 270397.30 270906.82
spec6.txt: throughput = 270451.93 268217.55
spec7.txt: throughput = 269511.07 269354.46
spec8.txt: throughput = 269386.06 270540.00
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results
spec1.txt: throughput = 244333.41 248072.72
spec2.txt: throughput = 252166.99 251818.30
spec3.txt: throughput = 251365.58 258266.24
spec4.txt: throughput = 245247.91 256873.51
spec5.txt: throughput = 245579.68 247743.18
spec6.txt: throughput = 249767.38 256285.86
spec7.txt: throughput = 244570.64 255343.99
spec8.txt: throughput = 245703.60 254434.36
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 132959.73 136957.12
spec2.txt: throughput = 127937.11 129326.23
spec3.txt: throughput = 130697.10 125772.11
spec4.txt: throughput = 134978.49 141607.58
spec5.txt: throughput = 127574.34 126748.18
spec6.txt: throughput = 138699.99 128597.95
spec7.txt: throughput = 133247.25 137344.57
spec8.txt: throughput = 124548.00 139040.98
------
II) Four 2-socket wide instances(20 warehouse threads each) :
Without
patches With patches
-------------------- ----------------
a) numactl pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 479931.16 472467.58
spec2.txt: throughput = 466652.15 466237.10
spec3.txt: throughput = 473591.51 466891.98
spec4.txt: throughput = 462346.62 466891.98
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results
spec1.txt: throughput = 383758.29 437489.99
spec2.txt: throughput = 370926.06 435692.97
spec3.txt: throughput = 368872.72 444615.08
spec4.txt: throughput = 404422.82 435236.20
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 252752.12 231762.30
spec2.txt: throughput = 255391.51 253250.95
spec3.txt: throughput = 264764.00 263721.03
spec4.txt: throughput = 254833.39 242892.72
------
III) Two 4-socket wide instances(40 warehouse threads each)
Without
patches With patches
-------------------- ----------------
a) numactl pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 771340.84 769039.53
spec2.txt: throughput = 762184.48 760745.65
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results
spec1.txt: throughput = 667182.98 720197.01
spec2.txt: throughput = 692564.11 739872.51
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 457079.28 467199.30
spec2.txt: throughput = 479790.47 456279.07
-----
IV) One 8-socket wide instance(80 warehouse threads)
Without
patches With patches
-------------------- ----------------
a) numactl pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 982113.03 985836.96
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results
spec1.txt: throughput = 755615.94 843632.09
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results
spec1.txt: throughput = 671583.26 661768.54
--
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