Message-Id: <20170822004126.GV11320@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 21 Aug 2017 17:41:26 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterz@...radead.org,
        akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
        ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
        jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/20] Speculative page faults

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:58:03AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 08/18/2017 03:34 AM, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> > This is a port on kernel 4.13 of the work done by Peter Zijlstra to
> > handle page fault without holding the mm semaphore [1].
> > 
> > The idea is to try to handle user space page faults without holding the
> > mmap_sem. This should allow better concurrency for massively threaded
> > process since the page fault handler will not wait for other threads memory
> > layout change to be done, assuming that this change is done in another part
> > of the process's memory space. This type page fault is named speculative
> > page fault. If the speculative page fault fails because of a concurrency is
> > detected or because underlying PMD or PTE tables are not yet allocating, it
> > is failing its processing and a classic page fault is then tried.
> > 
> > The speculative page fault (SPF) has to look for the VMA matching the fault
> > address without holding the mmap_sem, so the VMA list is now managed using
> > SRCU allowing lockless walking. The only impact would be the deferred file
> > derefencing in the case of a file mapping, since the file pointer is
> > released once the SRCU cleaning is done.  This patch relies on the change
> > done recently by Paul McKenney in SRCU which now runs a callback per CPU
> > instead of per SRCU structure [1].
> > 
> > The VMA's attributes checked during the speculative page fault processing
> > have to be protected against parallel changes. This is done by using a per
> > VMA sequence lock. This sequence lock allows the speculative page fault
> > handler to fast check for parallel changes in progress and to abort the
> > speculative page fault in that case.
> > 
> > Once the VMA is found, the speculative page fault handler would check for
> > the VMA's attributes to verify that the page fault has to be handled
> > correctly or not. Thus the VMA is protected through a sequence lock which
> > allows fast detection of concurrent VMA changes. If such a change is
> > detected, the speculative page fault is aborted and a *classic* page fault
> > is tried.  VMA sequence locks are added when VMA attributes which are
> > checked during the page fault are modified.
> > 
> > When the PTE is fetched, the VMA is checked to see if it has been changed,
> > so once the page table is locked, the VMA is valid, so any other changes
> > leading to touching this PTE will need to lock the page table, so no
> > parallel change is possible at this time.
> > 
> > Compared to the Peter's initial work, this series introduces a spin_trylock
> > when dealing with speculative page fault. This is required to avoid dead
> > lock when handling a page fault while a TLB invalidate is requested by an
> > other CPU holding the PTE. Another change due to a lock dependency issue
> > with mapping->i_mmap_rwsem.
> > 
> > In addition some VMA field values which are used once the PTE is unlocked
> > at the end the page fault path are saved into the vm_fault structure to
> > used the values matching the VMA at the time the PTE was locked.
> > 
> > This series builds on top of v4.13-rc5 and is functional on x86 and
> > PowerPC.
> > 
> > Tests have been made using a large commercial in-memory database on a
> > PowerPC system with 752 CPU using RFC v5. The results are very encouraging
> > since the loading of the 2TB database was faster by 14% with the
> > speculative page fault.
> > 
> 
> You specifically mention loading as most of the page faults will
> happen at that time and then the working set will settle down with
> very less page faults there after ? That means unless there is
> another wave of page faults we wont notice performance improvement
> during the runtime.
> 
> > Using ebizzy test [3], which spreads a lot of threads, the result are good
> > when running on both a large or a small system. When using kernbench, the
> 
> The performance improvements are greater as there is a lot of creation
> and destruction of anon mappings which generates constant flow of page
> faults to be handled.
> 
> > result are quite similar which expected as not so much multi threaded
> > processes are involved. But there is no performance degradation neither
> > which is good.
> 
> If we compile with 'make -j N' there would be a lot of threads but I
> guess the problem is SPF does not support handling file mapping IIUC
> which limits the performance improvement for some workloads.
> 
> > 
> > ------------------
> > Benchmarks results
> > 
> > Note these test have been made on top of 4.13-rc3 with the following patch
> > from Paul McKenney applied: 
> >  "srcu: Provide ordering for CPU not involved in grace period" [5]
> 
> Is this patch an improvement for SRCU which we are using for walking VMAs.

It is a tweak to an earlier patch that parallelizes SRCU callback
handling.

							Thanx, Paul

> > Ebizzy:
> > -------
> > The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the
> > higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent
> > result I repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result, mean
> > deviation, max and min.
> > 
> > - 16 CPUs x86 VM
> > Records/s	4.13-rc5	4.13-rc5-spf
> > Average		11350.29	21760.36
> > Mean deviation	396.56		881.40
> > Max		13773		26194
> > Min		10567		19223
> > 
> > - 80 CPUs Power 8 node:
> > Records/s	4.13-rc5	4.13-rc5-spf
> > Average		33904.67	58847.91
> > Mean deviation	789.40		1753.19
> > Max		36703		68958
> > Min		31759		55125
> > 
> 
> Can you also mention % improvement or degradation in a new column.
> 
> > The number of record per second is far better with the speculative page
> > fault.
> > The mean deviation is higher with the speculative page fault, may be
> > because sometime the fault are not handled in a speculative way leading to
> > more variation.
> 
> we need to analyze that. Why speculative page faults failed on those
> occasions for exact same workload.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Kernbench:
> > ----------
> > This test is building a 4.12 kernel using platform default config. The
> > build has been run 5 times each time.
> > 
> > - 16 CPUs x86 VM
> > Average Half load -j 8 Run (std deviation)
> >  		 4.13.0-rc5		4.13.0-rc5-spf
> > Elapsed Time     166.574 (0.340779)	145.754 (0.776325)		
> > User Time        1080.77 (2.05871)	999.272 (4.12142)		
> > System Time      204.594 (1.02449)	116.362 (1.22974)		
> > Percent CPU 	 771.2 (1.30384)	765 (0.707107)
> > Context Switches 46590.6 (935.591)	66316.4 (744.64)
> > Sleeps           84421.2 (596.612)	85186 (523.041)		
> 
> 
> > 
> > Average Optimal load -j 16 Run (std deviation)
> >  		 4.13.0-rc5		4.13.0-rc5-spf
> > Elapsed Time     85.422 (0.42293)	74.81 (0.419345)
> > User Time        1031.79 (51.6557)	954.912 (46.8439)
> > System Time      186.528 (19.0575)	107.514 (9.36902)
> > Percent CPU 	 1059.2 (303.607)	1056.8 (307.624)
> > Context Switches 67240.3 (21788.9)	89360.6 (24299.9)
> > Sleeps           89607.8 (5511.22)	90372.5 (5490.16)
> > 
> > The elapsed time is a bit shorter in the case of the SPF release, but the
> > impact less important since there are less multithreaded processes involved
> > here. 
> > 
> > - 80 CPUs Power 8 node:
> > Average Half load -j 40 Run (std deviation)
> >  		 4.13.0-rc5		4.13.0-rc5-spf
> > Elapsed Time     117.176 (0.824093)	116.792 (0.695392)
> > User Time        4412.34 (24.29)	4396.02 (24.4819)
> > System Time      131.106 (1.28343)	133.452 (0.708851)
> > Percent CPU      3876.8 (18.1439)	3877.6 (21.9955)
> > Context Switches 72470.2 (466.181)	72971 (673.624)
> > Sleeps           161294 (2284.85)	161946 (2217.9)
> > 
> > Average Optimal load -j 80 Run (std deviation)
> >  		 4.13.0-rc5		4.13.0-rc5-spf
> > Elapsed Time     111.176 (1.11123)	111.242 (0.801542)
> > User Time        5930.03 (1600.07)	5929.89 (1617)
> > System Time      166.258 (37.0662)	169.337 (37.8419)
> > Percent CPU      5378.5 (1584.16)	5385.6 (1590.24)
> > Context Switches 117389 (47350.1)	130132 (60256.3)
> > Sleeps           163354 (4153.9)	163219 (2251.27)
> > 
> 
> Can you also mention % improvement or degradation in a new column.
> 
> > Here the elapsed time is a bit shorter using the spf release, but we
> > remain in the error margin. It has to be noted that this system is not
> > correctly balanced on the NUMA point of view as all the available memory is
> > attached to one core.
> 
> Why different NUMA configuration would have changed the outcome ?
> 
> > 
> > ------------------------
> > Changes since v1:
> >  - Remove PERF_COUNT_SW_SPF_FAILED perf event.
> >  - Add tracing events to details speculative page fault failures.
> >  - Cache VMA fields values which are used once the PTE is unlocked at the
> >  end of the page fault events.
> 
> Why is this required ?

Powered by blists - more mailing lists