| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:02:24 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] Move LRU page reclaim from zones to nodes v8
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:47:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I had tested XFS with earlier releases and noticed no major problems
> > so later releases tested only one filesystem. Given the changes since,
> > a retest is desirable. I've posted the current version of the series but
> > I'll queue the tests to run over the weekend. They are quite time consuming
> > to run unfortunately.
>
> Understood. I'm not following the patchset all that closely, so I
> didn' know you'd already tested XFS.
>
It was needed anyway. Not all of them completed over the weekend. In
particular, the NUMA machine is taking its time because many of the
workloads are scaled by memory size and it takes longer.
> > On the fsmark configuration, I configured the test to use 4K files
> > instead of 0-sized files that normally would be used to stress inode
> > creation/deletion. This is to have a mix of page cache and slab
> > allocations. Shout if this does not suit your expectations.
>
> Sounds fine. I usually limit that test to 10 million inodes - that's
> my "10-4" test.
>
Thanks.
I'm not going to go through most of the results in detail. The raw data
is verbose and not necessarily useful in most cases.
tiobench
Similar results to ext4, similar performance, similar reclaim
activity
pgbench
Similar performance results to ext4. Minor differences in
reclaim activity. The series did enter direct reclaim which the
mmotm kernel did not. However, it was one minor spike. kswapd
activity was almost identical.
bonnie
Similar performance results to ext4, minor differences in
reclaim activity
parallel dd
Similar performance results to ext4. Small differences in reclaim
activity. Again, there was a slight increase in direct reclaim
activity but negligble in comparison to the overall workload.
Average direct reclaim velocity was 1.8 pages per second and
direct reclaim page scans were 0.018% of all scans.
stutter
Similar performance results to ext4, similar reclaim activity
These observations are all based on two UMA machines.
fsmark 50m-inodes-4k-files-16-threads
=====================================
As fsmark can be variable, this is reported as quartiles. This is one of
the UMA machines;
4.7.0-rc4 4.7.0-rc4
mmotm-20160623 approx-v9r6
Min files/sec-16 2354.80 ( 0.00%) 2255.40 ( -4.22%)
1st-qrtle files/sec-16 3254.90 ( 0.00%) 3249.40 ( -0.17%)
2nd-qrtle files/sec-16 3310.10 ( 0.00%) 3306.70 ( -0.10%)
3rd-qrtle files/sec-16 3353.40 ( 0.00%) 3329.00 ( -0.73%)
Max-90% files/sec-16 3435.70 ( 0.00%) 3426.90 ( -0.26%)
Max-93% files/sec-16 3437.80 ( 0.00%) 3462.50 ( 0.72%)
Max-95% files/sec-16 3471.60 ( 0.00%) 3536.50 ( 1.87%)
Max-99% files/sec-16 5383.90 ( 0.00%) 5900.00 ( 9.59%)
Max files/sec-16 5383.90 ( 0.00%) 5900.00 ( 9.59%)
Mean files/sec-16 3342.99 ( 0.00%) 3329.64 ( -0.40%)
4.7.0-rc4 4.7.0-rc4
mmotm-20160623 approx-v9r6
User 188.46 187.14
System 2964.26 2972.35
Elapsed 10222.83 9865.87
Direct pages scanned 144365 189738
Kswapd pages scanned 13147349 12965288
Kswapd pages reclaimed 13144543 12962266
Direct pages reclaimed 144365 189738
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1286.077 1314.156
Direct efficiency 100% 100%
Direct velocity 14.122 19.232
Percentage direct scans 1% 1%
Slabs scanned 52563968 52672128
Direct inode steals 132 24
Kswapd inode steals 18234 12096
The performance is comparable and so is slab reclaim activity. The NUMA
machine had completed the same test. On the NUMA machine, there is a also
a slight increase in direct reclaim activity but as a tiny percentage
overall. Slab scan and reclaim activity is almost identical.
fsmark 50m-inodes-0k-files-16-threads
=====================================
I also tested with zero-sized files. The UMA machine showed nothing
interesting, the NUMA machine results were as follows;
4.7.0-rc4 4.7.0-rc4
mmotm-20160623 approx-v9r6
Min files/sec-16 108235.50 ( 0.00%) 120783.20 ( 11.59%)
1st-qrtle files/sec-16 129569.40 ( 0.00%) 132300.70 ( 2.11%)
2nd-qrtle files/sec-16 135544.90 ( 0.00%) 141198.40 ( 4.17%)
3rd-qrtle files/sec-16 139634.90 ( 0.00%) 148242.50 ( 6.16%)
Max-90% files/sec-16 144203.60 ( 0.00%) 152247.10 ( 5.58%)
Max-93% files/sec-16 145294.50 ( 0.00%) 152642.20 ( 5.06%)
Max-95% files/sec-16 146009.70 ( 0.00%) 153355.20 ( 5.03%)
Max-99% files/sec-16 148346.80 ( 0.00%) 156353.50 ( 5.40%)
Max files/sec-16 149800.20 ( 0.00%) 158316.50 ( 5.69%)
Mean files/sec-16 133796.64 ( 0.00%) 140393.61 ( 4.93%)
Best99%Mean files/sec-16 149800.20 ( 0.00%) 158316.50 ( 5.69%)
Best95%Mean files/sec-16 147819.92 ( 0.00%) 155778.74 ( 5.38%)
Best90%Mean files/sec-16 146541.61 ( 0.00%) 154254.78 ( 5.26%)
Best50%Mean files/sec-16 140681.59 ( 0.00%) 148236.82 ( 5.37%)
Best10%Mean files/sec-16 135612.91 ( 0.00%) 142230.89 ( 4.88%)
Best5%Mean files/sec-16 134754.93 ( 0.00%) 141343.44 ( 4.89%)
Best1%Mean files/sec-16 134054.83 ( 0.00%) 140591.69 ( 4.88%)
fsmark-threaded App Overhead
4.7.0-rc4 4.7.0-rc4
mmotm-20160623 approx-v9r6
Min overhead-16 3113450.00 ( 0.00%) 2953856.00 ( -5.13%)
Amean overhead-16 3341992.77 ( 0.00%) 3270340.73 ( -2.14%)
Stddev overhead-16 128214.09 ( 0.00%) 137818.89 ( 7.49%)
CoeffVar overhead-16 3.84 ( 0.00%) 4.21 ( -9.85%)
Max overhead-16 3756612.00 ( 0.00%) 3743079.00 ( -0.36%)
4.7.0-rc4 4.7.0-rc4
mmotm-20160623 approx-v9r6
User 242.65 236.67
System 3507.20 3303.89
Elapsed 2201.73 2048.65
Direct pages scanned 261 106
Kswapd pages scanned 170106 59234
Kswapd pages reclaimed 167015 56118
Direct pages reclaimed 261 106
Kswapd efficiency 98% 94%
Kswapd velocity 77.260 28.914
Direct efficiency 100% 100%
Direct velocity 0.119 0.052
Percentage direct scans 0% 0%
Slabs scanned 93341634 92911820
Direct inode steals 0 0
Kswapd inode steals 39 39
The performance is slightly better and there is no major differences in
the reclaim stats.
I'll keep looking at results as they come in but the results so far
look fine.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists