linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: enlarge NUMA counters threshold size

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: <1fb66dfd-b64c-f705-ea27-a9f2e11729a4@intel.com>
Date:   Thu, 21 Dec 2017 16:23:23 +0800
From:   kemi <kemi.wang@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
        YASUAKI ISHIMATSU <yasu.isimatu@...il.com>,
        Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
        Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@...e.com>,
        Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Dave <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...el.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: enlarge NUMA counters threshold size



On 2017年12月21日 16:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 21-12-17 16:06:50, kemi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017年12月20日 18:12, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Wed 20-12-17 13:52:14, kemi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2017年12月19日 20:40, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 19-12-17 14:39:24, Kemi Wang wrote:
>>>>>> We have seen significant overhead in cache bouncing caused by NUMA counters
>>>>>> update in multi-threaded page allocation. See 'commit 1d90ca897cb0 ("mm:
>>>>>> update NUMA counter threshold size")' for more details.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This patch updates NUMA counters to a fixed size of (MAX_S16 - 2) and deals
>>>>>> with global counter update using different threshold size for node page
>>>>>> stats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, no numbers.
>>>>
>>>> Compare to vanilla kernel, I don't think it has performance improvement, so
>>>> I didn't post performance data here.
>>>> But, if you would like to see performance gain from enlarging threshold size
>>>> for NUMA stats (compare to the first patch), I will do that later. 
>>>
>>> Please do. I would also like to hear _why_ all counters cannot simply
>>> behave same. In other words why we cannot simply increase
>>> stat_threshold? Maybe calculate_normal_threshold needs a better scaling
>>> for larger machines.
>>>
>>
>> I will add this performance data to changelog in V3 patch series.
>>
>> Test machine: 2-sockets skylake platform (112 CPUs, 62G RAM)
>> Benchmark: page_bench03
>> Description: 112 threads do single page allocation/deallocation in parallel.
>>                before                           after
>>                                        (enlarge threshold size)       
>> CPU cycles     722                              379(-47.5%)
> 
> Please describe the numbers some more. Is this an average?

Yes

> What is the std? 

I increase the loop times to 10m, so the std is quite slow (repeat 3 times)

> Can you see any difference with a more generic workload?
> 

I didn't see obvious improvement for will-it-scale.page_fault1
Two reasons for that:
1) too long code path
2) server zone lock and lru lock contention (access to buddy system frequently) 

>> Some thinking about that:
>> a) the overhead due to cache bouncing caused by NUMA counter update in fast path 
>> severely increase with more and more CPUs cores
> 
> What is an effect on a smaller system with fewer CPUs?
> 

Several CPU cycles can be saved using single thread for that.

>> b) AFAIK, the typical usage scenario (similar at least)for which this optimization can 
>> benefit is 10/40G NIC used in high-speed data center network of cloud service providers.
> 
> I would expect those would disable the numa accounting altogether.
> 

Yes, but it is still worthy to do some optimization, isn't?