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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:06:06 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:	Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
	Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@...eaurora.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, lkp@...org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:26:51PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:
> 
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 03:27:44PM -0700, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 07:52:26AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> >> "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name> writes:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:57:28PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 11:58:11AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 04:41:37PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> >> >> >> > > "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > > > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> writes:
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:27:24AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> FYI, we noticed a -6.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> commit 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7 ("mm: make faultaround produce old ptes")
> >> >> >> > > >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> in testcase: unixbench
> >> >> >> > > >>> on test machine: lituya: 16 threads Haswell High-end Desktop (i7-5960X 3.0G) with 16G memory
> >> >> >> > > >>> with following parameters: cpufreq_governor=performance/nr_task=1/test=shell8
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> Details are as below:
> >> >> >> > > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> =========================================================================================
> >> >> >> > > >>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >> >> >> > > >>>   gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/1/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lituya/shell8/unixbench
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> commit: 
> >> >> >> > > >>>   4b50bcc7eda4d3cc9e3f2a0aa60e590fedf728c5
> >> >> >> > > >>>   5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7
> >> >> >> > > >>> 
> >> >> >> > > >>> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692de 
> >> >> >> > > >>> ---------------- -------------------------- 
> >> >> >> > > >>>        fail:runs  %reproduction    fail:runs
> >> >> >> > > >>>            |             |             |    
> >> >> >> > > >>>           3:4          -75%            :4     kmsg.DHCP/BOOTP:Reply_not_for_us,op[#]xid[#]
> >> >> >> > > >>>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
> >> >> >> > > >>>              \          |                \  
> >> >> >> > > >>>      14321 .  0%      -6.3%      13425 .  0%  unixbench.score
> >> >> >> > > >>>    1996897 .  0%      -6.1%    1874635 .  0%  unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
> >> >> >> > > >>>  1.721e+08 .  0%      -6.2%  1.613e+08 .  0%  unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
> >> >> >> > > >>>     758.65 .  0%      -3.0%     735.86 .  0%  unixbench.time.system_time
> >> >> >> > > >>>     387.66 .  0%      +5.4%     408.49 .  0%  unixbench.time.user_time
> >> >> >> > > >>>    5950278 .  0%      -6.2%    5583456 .  0%  unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> That's weird.
> >> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> >> > > >> I don't understand why the change would reduce number or minor faults.
> >> >> >> > > >> It should stay the same on x86-64. Rise of user_time is puzzling too.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > > unixbench runs in fixed time mode.  That is, the total time to run
> >> >> >> > > > unixbench is fixed, but the work done varies.  So the minor_page_faults
> >> >> >> > > > change may reflect only the work done.
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > >> Hm. Is reproducible? Across reboot?
> >> >> >> > > >
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > > And FYI, there is no swap setup for test, all root file system including
> >> >> >> > > benchmark files are in tmpfs, so no real page reclaim will be
> >> >> >> > > triggered.  But it appears that active file cache reduced after the
> >> >> >> > > commit.
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > >     111331 .  1%     -13.3%      96503 .  0%  meminfo.Active
> >> >> >> > >      27603 .  1%     -43.9%      15486 .  0%  meminfo.Active(file)
> >> >> >> > > 
> >> >> >> > > I think this is the expected behavior of the commit?
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > Yes, it's expected.
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > After the change faularound would produce old pte. It means there's more
> >> >> >> > chance for these pages to be on inactive lru, unless somebody actually
> >> >> >> > touch them and flip accessed bit.
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> Hmm, tmpfs pages should be in anonymous LRU list and VM shouldn't scan
> >> >> >> anonymous LRU list on swapless system so I really wonder why active file
> >> >> >> LRU is shrunk.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Hm. Good point. I don't why we have anything on file lru if there's no
> >> >> > filesystems except tmpfs.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ying, how do you get stuff to the tmpfs?
> >> >> 
> >> >> We put root file system and benchmark into a set of compressed cpio
> >> >> archive, then concatenate them into one initrd, and finally kernel use
> >> >> that initrd as initramfs.
> >> >
> >> > I see.
> >> >
> >> > Could you share your 4 full vmstat(/proc/vmstat) files?
> >> >
> >> > old:
> >> >
> >> > cat /proc/vmstat > before.old.vmstat
> >> > do benchmark
> >> > cat /proc/vmstat > after.old.vmstat
> >> >
> >> > new:
> >> >
> >> > cat /proc/vmstat > before.new.vmstat
> >> > do benchmark
> >> > cat /proc/vmstat > after.new.vmstat
> >> >
> >> > IOW, I want to see stats related to reclaim.
> >> 
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> The /proc/vmstat for the parent commit (parent-proc-vmstat.gz) and first
> >> bad commit (fbc-proc-vmstat.gz) are attached with the email.
> >> 
> >> The contents of the file is more than the vmstat before and after
> >> benchmark running, but are sampled every 1 seconds.  Every sample begin
> >> with "time: <time>".  You can check the first and last samples.  The
> >> first /proc/vmstat capturing is started at the same time of the
> >> benchmark, so it is not exactly the vmstat before the benchmark running.
> >> 
> >
> > Thanks for the testing!
> >
> > nr_active_file was shrunk 48% but the vaule itself is not huge so
> > I don't think it affects performance a lot.
> >
> > There was no reclaim activity for testing. :(
> >
> > pgfault, 6% reduced. Given that, pgalloc/free reduced 6%, too
> > because unixbench was time fixed mode and 6% regressed so no
> > doubt.
> >
> > No interesting data.
> >
> > It seems you tested it with THP, maybe always mode?
> 
> Yes.  With following in kconfig.
> 
> CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=y
> CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_ALWAYS=y
> 
> > I'm so sorry but could you test it with disabling CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE=n
> > again? it might you already did.
> > Is it still 6% regressed with disabling THP?
> 
> Yes.  I disabled THP via
> 
> echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
> echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/defrag
> 
> The regression is the same as before.

Still, 6% user_time regression and there is no difference with previous
experiment which enabled THP so I agree the regression is caused by just
access bit setting from CPU side, which is rather surprising to me.

I don't know how unixbench shell scripts testing touch the memory
but it should be per-page overhead and 6% regression for that is too heavy.
Anyway, at least, it would be better to notice it to x86 maintainer.

Thanks for the test!

> 
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/thp_defrag/thp_enabled:
>   gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/1/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lituya/shell8/unixbench/never/never
> 
> commit: 
>   4b50bcc7eda4d3cc9e3f2a0aa60e590fedf728c5
>   5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7
> 
> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692de 
> ---------------- -------------------------- 
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \  
>      14332 ±  0%      -6.2%      13438 ±  0%  unixbench.score
>    6662206 ±  0%      -6.2%    6252260 ±  0%  unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
>  5.734e+08 ±  0%      -6.2%  5.376e+08 ±  0%  unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
>       2527 ±  0%      -3.2%       2446 ±  0%  unixbench.time.system_time
>       1291 ±  0%      +5.4%       1361 ±  0%  unixbench.time.user_time
>   19875455 ±  0%      -6.3%   18622488 ±  0%  unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
>    6570355 ±  0%     -11.9%    5787517 ±  0%  cpuidle.C1-HSW.usage
>      17257 ± 34%     -59.1%       7055 ±  7%  latency_stats.sum.ep_poll.SyS_epoll_wait.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
>       5976 ±  0%     -43.0%       3404 ±  0%  proc-vmstat.nr_active_file
>      45729 ±  1%     -22.5%      35439 ±  1%  meminfo.Active
>      23905 ±  0%     -43.0%      13619 ±  0%  meminfo.Active(file)
>       8465 ±  3%     -29.8%       5940 ±  3%  slabinfo.pid.active_objs
>       8476 ±  3%     -29.9%       5940 ±  3%  slabinfo.pid.num_objs
>       3.46 ±  0%     +12.5%       3.89 ±  0%  turbostat.CPU%c3
>      67.09 ±  0%      -2.1%      65.65 ±  0%  turbostat.PkgWatt
>      96090 ±  0%      -5.8%      90479 ±  0%  vmstat.system.cs
>       9083 ±  0%      -2.7%       8833 ±  0%  vmstat.system.in
>     467.35 ± 78%    +416.7%       2414 ± 45%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.MIN_vruntime.avg
>       7477 ± 78%    +327.7%      31981 ± 39%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.MIN_vruntime.max
>       1810 ± 78%    +360.1%       8327 ± 40%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.MIN_vruntime.stddev
>     467.35 ± 78%    +416.7%       2414 ± 45%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.max_vruntime.avg
>       7477 ± 78%    +327.7%      31981 ± 39%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.max_vruntime.max
>       1810 ± 78%    +360.1%       8327 ± 40%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.max_vruntime.stddev
>     -10724 ± -7%     -12.0%      -9433 ± -3%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.avg
>     -17721 ± -4%      -9.8%     -15978 ± -2%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.min
>      90355 ±  9%     +14.1%     103099 ±  5%  sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.min
>       0.12 ± 35%    +325.0%       0.52 ± 46%  sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[0].min
>      21913 ±  2%     +29.1%      28288 ± 14%  sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.avg
>      49953 ±  3%     +30.2%      65038 ±  0%  sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.max
>      23062 ±  2%     +30.1%      29996 ±  4%  sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.stddev
>     274.39 ±  5%     -10.2%     246.27 ±  3%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.max
>     242.73 ±  4%     -13.5%     209.90 ±  2%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
> 
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists