linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Parallel hugepage migration optimization

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: <B5954713-0912-40E6-898E-BF4A05B7E5CB@cs.rutgers.edu>
Date:   Mon, 28 Nov 2016 10:22:45 -0500
From:   Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
To:     Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>
CC:     <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <minchan@...nel.org>,
        <vbabka@...e.cz>, <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Parallel hugepage migration optimization

On 24 Nov 2016, at 18:59, Balbir Singh wrote:

> On 23/11/16 03:25, Zi Yan wrote:
>> From: Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This patchset boosts the hugepage migration throughput and helps THP migration
>> which is added by Naoya's patches: https://lwn.net/Articles/705879/.
>>
>> Motivation
>> ===============================
>>
>> In x86, 4KB page migrations are underutilizing the memory bandwidth compared
>> to 2MB THP migrations. I did some page migration benchmarking on a two-socket
>> Intel Xeon E5-2640v3 box, which has 23.4GB/s bandwidth, and discover
>> there are big throughput gap, ~3x, between 4KB and 2MB page migrations.
>>
>> Here are the throughput numbers for different page sizes and page numbers:
>>         | 512 4KB pages | 1 2MB THP  |  1 4KB page
>> x86_64  |  0.98GB/s     |  2.97GB/s  |   0.06GB/s
>>
>> As Linux currently use single-threaded page migration, the throughput is still
>> much lower than the hardware bandwidth, 2.97GB/s vs 23.4GB/s. So I parallelize
>> the copy_page() part of THP migration with workqueue and achieve 2.8x throughput.
>>
>> Here are the throughput numbers of 2MB page migration:
>>            |  single-threaded   | 8-thread
>> x86_64 2MB |    2.97GB/s        | 8.58GB/s
>>
>
> Whats the impact on CPU utilization? Is there a huge impact?
>
> Balbir Singh.

It depends on the throughput we can achieve.

For single-threaded copy, the current routine, it takes one CPU 2MB/(2.97GB/s) = 657.6 us
to copy one 2MB page.

For 8-thread copy, it take 8 CPUs 2MB/(8.58GB/s) = 227.6 us to copy one 2MB page.

If we have 8 idle CPUs, I think it worths using them.

I am going to add code to check idle_cpu() in the system before doing the copy.
If no idle CPUs are present, I can fall back to single-threaded copy.


--
Best Regards
Yan Zi

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (497 bytes)