linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 795ae7a0de: pixz.throughput -9.1% regression

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160608053726.GA20879@yexl-desktop>
Date:	Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:37:26 +0800
From:	Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To:	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, lkp@...org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 795ae7a0de: pixz.throughput -9.1% regression

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 05:56:27PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 12:48:17PM +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>> FYI, below is the comparison info between 3ed3a4f, 795ae7ay, v4.7-rc2 and the
>> revert commit (eaa7f0d).
>
>Thanks for running this.
>
>Alas, I still can not make heads or tails of this, or reproduce it
>locally for that matter.
>
>With this test run, there seems to be a significant increase in system time:
>
>>      92.03 ±  0%      +5.6%      97.23 ± 11%     +30.5%     120.08 ±  1%     +30.0%     119.61 ±  0%  pixz.time.system_time
>
>Would it be possible to profile the testruns using perf? Maybe we can
>find out where the kernel is spending the extra time.
>
>But just to make sure I'm looking at the right code, can you first try
>the following patch on top of Linus's current tree and see if that
>gets performance back to normal? It's a partial revert of the
>watermarks that singles out the fair zone allocator:

Seems that this patch doesn't help to gets performance back.
I've attached the comparison result among 3ed3a4f, 795ae7ay, v4.7-rc2 and
1fe49ba5 ("mm: revert fairness batching to before the watermarks were")
with perf profile information.  You can find it via searching 'perf-profile'.

Thanks,
Xiaolong

>
>>From 2015eaad688486d65fcf86185e213fff8506b3fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 17:45:03 -0400
>Subject: [PATCH] mm: revert fairness batching to before the watermarks were
> boosted
>
>Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
>---
> include/linux/mmzone.h | 2 ++
> mm/page_alloc.c        | 6 ++++--
> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/mmzone.h b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>index 02069c2..4565b92 100644
>--- a/include/linux/mmzone.h
>+++ b/include/linux/mmzone.h
>@@ -327,6 +327,8 @@ struct zone {
> 	/* zone watermarks, access with *_wmark_pages(zone) macros */
> 	unsigned long watermark[NR_WMARK];
> 
>+	unsigned long fairbatch;
>+
> 	unsigned long nr_reserved_highatomic;
> 
> 	/*
>diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
>index 6903b69..33387ab 100644
>--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
>+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
>@@ -2889,7 +2889,7 @@ static void reset_alloc_batches(struct zone *preferred_zone)
> 
> 	do {
> 		mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH,
>-			high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) -
>+			zone->fairbatch -
> 			atomic_long_read(&zone->vm_stat[NR_ALLOC_BATCH]));
> 		clear_bit(ZONE_FAIR_DEPLETED, &zone->flags);
> 	} while (zone++ != preferred_zone);
>@@ -6842,6 +6842,8 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> 			zone->watermark[WMARK_MIN] = tmp;
> 		}
> 
>+		zone->fairbatch = tmp >> 2;
>+
> 		/*
> 		 * Set the kswapd watermarks distance according to the
> 		 * scale factor in proportion to available memory, but
>@@ -6855,7 +6857,7 @@ static void __setup_per_zone_wmarks(void)
> 		zone->watermark[WMARK_HIGH] = min_wmark_pages(zone) + tmp * 2;
> 
> 		__mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_ALLOC_BATCH,
>-			high_wmark_pages(zone) - low_wmark_pages(zone) -
>+			zone->fairbatch -
> 			atomic_long_read(&zone->vm_stat[NR_ALLOC_BATCH]));
> 
> 		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&zone->lock, flags);
>-- 
>2.8.2

View attachment "comparison" of type "text/plain" (43765 bytes)