| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20180712155536.20023cc4@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:55:36 +0200
From: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Cc: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>, brouer@...hat.com,
Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm, page_alloc: double zone's batchsize
On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:54:08 +0200
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> [CC Jesper - I remember he was really concerned about the worst case
> latencies for highspeed network workloads.]
Cc. Tariq as he have hit some networking benchmarks (around 100Gbit/s),
where we are contenting on the page allocator lock, in a CPU scaling
netperf test AFAIK. I also have some special-case micro-benchmarks
where I can hit it, but it a micro-bench...
> Sorry for top posting but I do not want to torture anybody to scroll
> down the long changelog which I want to preserve for Jesper.
Thanks! - It look like a very detailed and exhaustive test for a very
small change, I'm impressed.
> I personally do not mind this change. I usually find performance
> improvements solely based on microbenchmarks without any real world
> workloads numbers a bit dubious. Especially when numbers are single
> cpu vendor based (even though that the number of measurements is quite
> impressive here and much better than what we can usually get). On
> the other hand this change is really simple. Should we ever find a
> regression it will be trivial to reconsider/revert.
I do think it is a good idea to increase this batch size.
In network micro-benchmarks it is usually hard to hit the page_alloc
lock, because drivers have all kind of page recycle schemes to avoid
talking to the page allocator. Most of these schemes depend on pages
getting recycled fast enough, which is true for these micro-benchmarks,
but for real-world workloads, where packets/pages are "outstanding"
longer, these page-recycle schemes break down, and drivers start to
talk to the page allocator. Thus, this change might help networking
for real-workloads (but will not show-up in network micro-benchs).
> One could argue that the size of the batch should scale with the number
> of CPUs or even the uarch but cosindering how much we suck in that
> regards and that differences are not that large I agree that simply bump
> up the number is the most viable way forward.
>
> That being said, feel free to add
> Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
I will also happily ACK this patch, you can add:
Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
> Thanks. The whole patch including the changelog follows below.
>
> On Wed 11-07-18 13:58:55, Aaron Lu wrote:
> > To improve page allocator's performance for order-0 pages, each CPU has
> > a Per-CPU-Pageset(PCP) per zone. Whenever an order-0 page is needed,
> > PCP will be checked first before asking pages from Buddy. When PCP is
> > used up, a batch of pages will be fetched from Buddy to improve
> > performance and the size of batch can affect performance.
> >
> > zone's batch size gets doubled last time by commit ba56e91c9401("mm:
> > page_alloc: increase size of per-cpu-pages") over ten years ago. Since
> > then, CPU has envolved a lot and CPU's cache sizes also increased.
> >
> > Dave Hansen is concerned the current batch size doesn't fit well with
> > modern hardware and suggested me to do two things: first, use a page
> > allocator intensive benchmark, e.g. will-it-scale/page_fault1 to find
> > out how performance changes with different batch sizes on various
> > machines and then choose a new default batch size; second, see how
> > this new batch size work with other workloads.
> >
> > >From the first test, we saw performance gains on high-core-count systems
> > and little to no effect on older systems with more modest core counts.
> > >From this phase's test data, two candidates: 63 and 127 are chosen.
> >
> > In the second step, ebizzy, oltp, kbuild, pigz, netperf, vm-scalability
> > and more will-it-scale sub-tests are tested to see how these two
> > candidates work with these workloads and decides a new default
> > according to their results.
> >
> > Most test results are flat. will-it-scale/page_fault2 process mode has
> > 10%-18% performance increase on 4-sockets Skylake and Broadwell.
> > vm-scalability/lru-file-mmap-read has 17%-47% performance increase for
> > 4-sockets servers while for 2-sockets servers, it caused 3%-8%
> > performance drop. Further analysis showed that, with a larger pcp->batch
> > and thus larger pcp->high(the relationship of pcp->high=6 * pcp->batch
> > is maintained in this patch), zone lock contention shifted to LRU add
> > side lock contention and that caused performance drop. This performance
> > drop might be mitigated by others' work on optimizing LRU lock.
> >
> > Another downside of increasing pcp->batch is, when PCP is used up and
> > need to fetch a batch of pages from Buddy, since batch is increased,
> > that time can be longer than before. My understanding is, this doesn't
> > affect slowpath where direct reclaim and compaction dominates. For
> > fastpath, throughput is a win(according to will-it-scale/page_fault1)
> > but worst latency can be larger now.
> >
> > Overall, I think double the batch size from 31 to 63 is relatively
> > safe and provide good performance boost for high-core-count systems.
> >
> > The two phase's test results are listed below(all tests are done with
> > THP disabled).
> >
> > Phase one(will-it-scale/page_fault1) test results:
> >
> > Skylake-EX: increased batch size has a good effect on zone->lock
> > contention, though LRU contention will rise at the same time and
> > limited the final performance increase.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 15345900 +0.00% 64% 8% 72%
> > 53 17903847 +16.67% 32% 38% 70%
> > 63 17992886 +17.25% 24% 45% 69%
> > 73 18022825 +17.44% 10% 61% 71%
> > 119 18023401 +17.45% 4% 66% 70%
> > 127 18029012 +17.48% 3% 66% 69%
> > 137 18036075 +17.53% 4% 66% 70%
> > 165 18035964 +17.53% 2% 67% 69%
> > 188 18101105 +17.95% 2% 67% 69%
> > 223 18130951 +18.15% 2% 67% 69%
> > 255 18118898 +18.07% 2% 67% 69%
> > 267 18101559 +17.96% 2% 67% 69%
> > 299 18160468 +18.34% 2% 68% 70%
> > 320 18139845 +18.21% 2% 67% 69%
> > 393 18160869 +18.34% 2% 68% 70%
> > 424 18170999 +18.41% 2% 68% 70%
> > 458 18144868 +18.24% 2% 68% 70%
> > 467 18142366 +18.22% 2% 68% 70%
> > 498 18154549 +18.30% 1% 68% 69%
> > 511 18134525 +18.17% 1% 69% 70%
> >
> > Broadwell-EX: similar pattern as Skylake-EX.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 16703983 +0.00% 67% 7% 74%
> > 53 18195393 +8.93% 43% 28% 71%
> > 63 18288885 +9.49% 38% 33% 71%
> > 73 18344329 +9.82% 35% 37% 72%
> > 119 18535529 +10.96% 24% 46% 70%
> > 127 18513596 +10.83% 23% 48% 71%
> > 137 18514327 +10.84% 23% 48% 71%
> > 165 18511840 +10.82% 22% 49% 71%
> > 188 18593478 +11.31% 17% 53% 70%
> > 223 18601667 +11.36% 17% 52% 69%
> > 255 18774825 +12.40% 12% 58% 70%
> > 267 18754781 +12.28% 9% 60% 69%
> > 299 18892265 +13.10% 7% 63% 70%
> > 320 18873812 +12.99% 8% 62% 70%
> > 393 18891174 +13.09% 6% 64% 70%
> > 424 18975108 +13.60% 6% 64% 70%
> > 458 18932364 +13.34% 8% 62% 70%
> > 467 18960891 +13.51% 5% 65% 70%
> > 498 18944526 +13.41% 5% 64% 69%
> > 511 18960839 +13.51% 5% 64% 69%
> >
> > Skylake-EP: although increased batch reduced zone->lock contention, but
> > the effect is not as good as EX: zone->lock contention is still as
> > high as 20% with a very high batch value instead of 1% on Skylake-EX or
> > 5% on Broadwell-EX. Also, total_contention actually decreased with a
> > higher batch but that doesn't translate to performance increase.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 9554867 +0.00% 66% 3% 69%
> > 53 9855486 +3.15% 63% 3% 66%
> > 63 9980145 +4.45% 62% 4% 66%
> > 73 10092774 +5.63% 62% 5% 67%
> > 119 10310061 +7.90% 45% 19% 64%
> > 127 10342019 +8.24% 42% 19% 61%
> > 137 10358182 +8.41% 42% 21% 63%
> > 165 10397060 +8.81% 37% 24% 61%
> > 188 10341808 +8.24% 34% 26% 60%
> > 223 10349135 +8.31% 31% 27% 58%
> > 255 10327189 +8.08% 28% 29% 57%
> > 267 10344204 +8.26% 27% 29% 56%
> > 299 10325043 +8.06% 25% 30% 55%
> > 320 10310325 +7.91% 25% 31% 56%
> > 393 10293274 +7.73% 21% 31% 52%
> > 424 10311099 +7.91% 21% 32% 53%
> > 458 10321375 +8.02% 21% 32% 53%
> > 467 10303881 +7.84% 21% 32% 53%
> > 498 10332462 +8.14% 20% 33% 53%
> > 511 10325016 +8.06% 20% 32% 52%
> >
> > Broadwell-EP: zone->lock and lru lock had an agreement to make sure
> > performance doesn't increase and they successfully managed to keep
> > total contention at 70%.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 10121178 +0.00% 19% 50% 69%
> > 53 10142366 +0.21% 6% 63% 69%
> > 63 10117984 -0.03% 11% 58% 69%
> > 73 10123330 +0.02% 7% 63% 70%
> > 119 10108791 -0.12% 2% 67% 69%
> > 127 10166074 +0.44% 3% 66% 69%
> > 137 10141574 +0.20% 3% 66% 69%
> > 165 10154499 +0.33% 2% 68% 70%
> > 188 10124921 +0.04% 2% 67% 69%
> > 223 10137399 +0.16% 2% 67% 69%
> > 255 10143289 +0.22% 0% 68% 68%
> > 267 10123535 +0.02% 1% 68% 69%
> > 299 10140952 +0.20% 0% 68% 68%
> > 320 10163170 +0.41% 0% 68% 68%
> > 393 10000633 -1.19% 0% 69% 69%
> > 424 10087998 -0.33% 0% 69% 69%
> > 458 10187116 +0.65% 0% 69% 69%
> > 467 10146790 +0.25% 0% 69% 69%
> > 498 10197958 +0.76% 0% 69% 69%
> > 511 10152326 +0.31% 0% 69% 69%
> >
> > Haswell-EP: similar to Broadwell-EP.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 10442205 +0.00% 14% 48% 62%
> > 53 10442255 +0.00% 5% 57% 62%
> > 63 10452059 +0.09% 6% 57% 63%
> > 73 10482349 +0.38% 5% 59% 64%
> > 119 10454644 +0.12% 3% 60% 63%
> > 127 10431514 -0.10% 3% 59% 62%
> > 137 10423785 -0.18% 3% 60% 63%
> > 165 10481216 +0.37% 2% 61% 63%
> > 188 10448755 +0.06% 2% 61% 63%
> > 223 10467144 +0.24% 2% 61% 63%
> > 255 10480215 +0.36% 2% 61% 63%
> > 267 10484279 +0.40% 2% 61% 63%
> > 299 10466450 +0.23% 2% 61% 63%
> > 320 10452578 +0.10% 2% 61% 63%
> > 393 10499678 +0.55% 1% 62% 63%
> > 424 10481454 +0.38% 1% 62% 63%
> > 458 10473562 +0.30% 1% 62% 63%
> > 467 10484269 +0.40% 0% 62% 62%
> > 498 10505599 +0.61% 0% 62% 62%
> > 511 10483395 +0.39% 0% 62% 62%
> >
> > Westmere-EP: contention is pretty small so not interesting. Note too
> > high a batch value could hurt performance.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 4831523 +0.00% 2% 3% 5%
> > 53 4834086 +0.05% 2% 4% 6%
> > 63 4834262 +0.06% 2% 3% 5%
> > 73 4832851 +0.03% 2% 4% 6%
> > 119 4830534 -0.02% 1% 3% 4%
> > 127 4827461 -0.08% 1% 4% 5%
> > 137 4827459 -0.08% 1% 3% 4%
> > 165 4820534 -0.23% 0% 4% 4%
> > 188 4817947 -0.28% 0% 3% 3%
> > 223 4809671 -0.45% 0% 3% 3%
> > 255 4802463 -0.60% 0% 4% 4%
> > 267 4801634 -0.62% 0% 3% 3%
> > 299 4798047 -0.69% 0% 3% 3%
> > 320 4793084 -0.80% 0% 3% 3%
> > 393 4785877 -0.94% 0% 3% 3%
> > 424 4782911 -1.01% 0% 3% 3%
> > 458 4779346 -1.08% 0% 3% 3%
> > 467 4780306 -1.06% 0% 3% 3%
> > 498 4780589 -1.05% 0% 3% 3%
> > 511 4773724 -1.20% 0% 3% 3%
> >
> > Skylake-Desktop: similar to Westmere-EP, nothing interesting.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 3906608 +0.00% 2% 3% 5%
> > 53 3940164 +0.86% 2% 3% 5%
> > 63 3937289 +0.79% 2% 3% 5%
> > 73 3940201 +0.86% 2% 3% 5%
> > 119 3933240 +0.68% 2% 3% 5%
> > 127 3930514 +0.61% 2% 4% 6%
> > 137 3938639 +0.82% 0% 3% 3%
> > 165 3908755 +0.05% 0% 3% 3%
> > 188 3905621 -0.03% 0% 3% 3%
> > 223 3903015 -0.09% 0% 4% 4%
> > 255 3889480 -0.44% 0% 3% 3%
> > 267 3891669 -0.38% 0% 4% 4%
> > 299 3898728 -0.20% 0% 4% 4%
> > 320 3894547 -0.31% 0% 4% 4%
> > 393 3875137 -0.81% 0% 4% 4%
> > 424 3874521 -0.82% 0% 3% 3%
> > 458 3880432 -0.67% 0% 4% 4%
> > 467 3888715 -0.46% 0% 3% 3%
> > 498 3888633 -0.46% 0% 4% 4%
> > 511 3875305 -0.80% 0% 5% 5%
> >
> > Haswell-Desktop: zone->lock is pretty low as other desktops, though lru
> > contention is higher than other desktops.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 3511158 +0.00% 2% 5% 7%
> > 53 3555445 +1.26% 2% 6% 8%
> > 63 3561082 +1.42% 2% 6% 8%
> > 73 3547218 +1.03% 2% 6% 8%
> > 119 3571319 +1.71% 1% 7% 8%
> > 127 3549375 +1.09% 0% 6% 6%
> > 137 3560233 +1.40% 0% 6% 6%
> > 165 3555176 +1.25% 2% 6% 8%
> > 188 3551501 +1.15% 0% 8% 8%
> > 223 3531462 +0.58% 0% 7% 7%
> > 255 3570400 +1.69% 0% 7% 7%
> > 267 3532235 +0.60% 1% 8% 9%
> > 299 3562326 +1.46% 0% 6% 6%
> > 320 3553569 +1.21% 0% 8% 8%
> > 393 3539519 +0.81% 0% 7% 7%
> > 424 3549271 +1.09% 0% 8% 8%
> > 458 3528885 +0.50% 0% 8% 8%
> > 467 3526554 +0.44% 0% 7% 7%
> > 498 3525302 +0.40% 0% 9% 9%
> > 511 3527556 +0.47% 0% 8% 8%
> >
> > Sandybridge-Desktop: the 0% contention isn't accurate but caused by
> > dropped fractional part. Since multiple contention path's contentions
> > are all under 1% here, with some arithmetic operations like add, the
> > final deviation could be as large as 3%.
> >
> > batch score change zone_contention lru_contention total_contention
> > 31 1744495 +0.00% 0% 0% 0%
> > 53 1755341 +0.62% 0% 0% 0%
> > 63 1758469 +0.80% 0% 0% 0%
> > 73 1759626 +0.87% 0% 0% 0%
> > 119 1770417 +1.49% 0% 0% 0%
> > 127 1768252 +1.36% 0% 0% 0%
> > 137 1767848 +1.34% 0% 0% 0%
> > 165 1765088 +1.18% 0% 0% 0%
> > 188 1766918 +1.29% 0% 0% 0%
> > 223 1767866 +1.34% 0% 0% 0%
> > 255 1768074 +1.35% 0% 0% 0%
> > 267 1763187 +1.07% 0% 0% 0%
> > 299 1765620 +1.21% 0% 0% 0%
> > 320 1767603 +1.32% 0% 0% 0%
> > 393 1764612 +1.15% 0% 0% 0%
> > 424 1758476 +0.80% 0% 0% 0%
> > 458 1758593 +0.81% 0% 0% 0%
> > 467 1757915 +0.77% 0% 0% 0%
> > 498 1753363 +0.51% 0% 0% 0%
> > 511 1755548 +0.63% 0% 0% 0%
> >
> > Phase two test results:
> > Note: all percent change is against base(batch=31).
> >
> > ebizzy.throughput (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 2410037±7% 2600451±2% +7.9% 2602878 +8.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1493328 1489243 -0.3% 1492145 -0.1%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 1329674 1345891 +1.2% 1351056 +1.6%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 711511 711511 0.0% 710708 -0.1%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 75750 75528 -0.3% 75441 -0.4%
> > lkp-skl-d01 264126 262791 -0.5% 264113 +0.0%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 176601 176328 -0.2% 176368 -0.1%
> > lkp-sb02 98937 98937 +0.0% 99030 +0.1%
> >
> > kbuild.buildtime (less is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 107.00 107.67 +0.6% 107.11 +0.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 97.33 97.33 +0.0% 97.42 +0.1%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 180.00 179.83 -0.1% 179.83 -0.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 178.17 179.17 +0.6% 177.50 -0.4%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 737.00 738.00 +0.1% 738.00 +0.1%
> > lkp-skl-d01 642.00 653.00 +1.7% 653.00 +1.7%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1310.00 1316.00 +0.5% 1311.00 +0.1%
> >
> >
> > netperf/TCP_STREAM.Throughput_total_Mbps (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 948790 947144 -0.2% 948333 -0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 904224 904366 +0.0% 904926 +0.1%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 239731 239607 -0.1% 239565 -0.1%
> > lk-bdw-ep2 365764 365933 +0.0% 365951 +0.1%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 93736 93803 +0.1% 93808 +0.1%
> > lkp-skl-d01 77314 77303 -0.0% 77375 +0.1%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 58617 60387 +3.0% 60208 +2.7%
> > lkp-sb02 29990 30137 +0.5% 30103 +0.4%
> >
> > oltp.transactions (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 9073276 9100377 +0.3% 9036344 -0.4%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 8898717 8852054 -0.5% 8894459 -0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 13426155 13384654 -0.3% 13333637 -0.7%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 13146314 13232784 +0.7% 13193163 +0.4%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 5035355 5019348 -0.3% 5033418 -0.0%
> > lkp-skl-d01 418485 4413339 -0.1% 4419039 +0.0%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 3517817±5% 3396120±3% -3.5% 3455138±3% -1.8%
> >
> > pigz.throughput (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1.513e+08 1.507e+08 -0.4% 1.511e+08 -0.2%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 2.060e+08 2.052e+08 -0.4% 2.044e+08 -0.8%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 8.836e+08 8.845e+08 +0.1% 8.836e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 8.275e+08 8.464e+08 +2.3% 8.330e+08 +0.7%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 2.224e+08 2.221e+08 -0.2% 2.218e+08 -0.3%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1.177e+08 1.177e+08 -0.0% 1.176e+08 -0.1%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1.154e+08 1.154e+08 +0.1% 1.154e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-sb02 0.633e+08 0.633e+08 +0.1% 0.633e+08 +0.0%
> >
> >
> > will-it-scale.malloc1.processes (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 620181 620484 +0.0% 620240 +0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1403610 1401201 -0.2% 1417900 +1.0%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 1288097 1284145 -0.3% 1283907 -0.3%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 1427879 1427675 -0.0% 1428266 +0.0%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 1362546 1353965 -0.6% 1354759 -0.6%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 2099657 2107576 +0.4% 2100226 +0.0%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1476835 1476358 -0.0% 1474487 -0.2%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1308810 1303429 -0.4% 1301299 -0.6%
> > lkp-sb02 589286 589284 -0.0% 588101 -0.2%
> >
> > will-it-scale.malloc1.threads (higher is better)
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 21289 21125 -0.8% 21241 -0.2%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 28114 28089 -0.1% 28007 -0.4%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 91866 91946 +0.1% 92723 +0.9%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 37637 37501 -0.4% 37317 -0.9%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 43673 43590 -0.2% 43754 +0.2%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 28577 28298 -1.0% 28545 -0.1%
> > lkp-skl-d01 175277 173343 -1.1% 173082 -1.3%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 130303 129566 -0.6% 129250 -0.8%
> > lkp-sb02 113742±3% 116911 +2.8% 116417±3% +2.4%
> >
> > will-it-scale.malloc2.processes (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1.206e+09 1.206e+09 -0.0% 1.206e+09 +0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.319e+09 1.319e+09 -0.0% 1.319e+09 +0.0%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 8.000e+08 8.021e+08 +0.3% 7.995e+08 -0.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 6.582e+08 6.634e+08 +0.8% 6.513e+08 -1.1%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 6.671e+08 6.669e+08 -0.0% 6.665e+08 -0.1%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 1.805e+08 1.806e+08 +0.0% 1.804e+08 -0.1%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1.611e+08 1.611e+08 -0.0% 1.610e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1.333e+08 1.332e+08 -0.0% 1.332e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-sb02 82485104 82478206 -0.0% 82473546 -0.0%
> >
> > will-it-scale.malloc2.threads (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1.574e+09 1.574e+09 -0.0% 1.574e+09 -0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.737e+09 1.737e+09 +0.0% 1.737e+09 -0.0%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 9.161e+08 9.162e+08 +0.0% 9.181e+08 +0.2%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 7.856e+08 8.015e+08 +2.0% 8.113e+08 +3.3%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 6.908e+08 6.904e+08 -0.1% 6.907e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 2.409e+08 2.409e+08 +0.0% 2.409e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1.199e+08 1.199e+08 -0.0% 1.199e+08 -0.0%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1.029e+08 1.029e+08 -0.0% 1.029e+08 +0.0%
> > lkp-sb02 68081213 68061423 -0.0% 68076037 -0.0%
> >
> > will-it-scale.page_fault2.processes (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 14509125±4% 16472364 +13.5% 17123117 +18.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 14736381 16196588 +9.9% 16364011 +11.0%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 6354925 6435444 +1.3% 6436644 +1.3%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 8749584 8834422 +1.0% 8827179 +0.9%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 8762591 8845920 +1.0% 8825697 +0.7%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 3036083 3030428 -0.2% 3021741 -0.5%
> > lkp-skl-d01 2307834 2304731 -0.1% 2286142 -0.9%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1806237 1800786 -0.3% 1795943 -0.6%
> > lkp-sb02 842616 837844 -0.6% 833921 -1.0%
> >
> > will-it-scale.page_fault2.threads
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1623294 1615132±2% -0.5% 1656777 +2.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1995714 2025948 +1.5% 2113753±3% +5.9%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 2346708 2415591 +2.9% 2416919 +3.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 2342564 2344882 +0.1% 2300206 -1.8%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 1820658 1831681 +0.6% 1844057 +1.3%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 1725482 1733774 +0.5% 1740517 +0.9%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1832833 1823628 -0.5% 1806489 -1.4%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 1427913 1427287 -0.0% 1420226 -0.5%
> > lkp-sb02 750626 748615 -0.3% 746621 -0.5%
> >
> > will-it-scale.page_fault3.processes (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 24382726 24400317 +0.1% 24668774 +1.2%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 35399750 35683124 +0.8% 35829492 +1.2%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 28136820 28068248 -0.2% 28147989 +0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 37269077 37459490 +0.5% 37373073 +0.3%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 36224967 36114085 -0.3% 36104908 -0.3%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 16820457 16911005 +0.5% 16968596 +0.9%
> > lkp-skl-d01 7721138 7725904 +0.1% 7756740 +0.5%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 7611979 7650928 +0.5% 7651323 +0.5%
> > lkp-sb02 3781546 3796502 +0.4% 3796827 +0.4%
> >
> > will-it-scale.page_fault3.threads (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1865820±3% 1900917±2% +1.9% 1826245±4% -2.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 3094060 3148326 +1.8% 3150036 +1.8%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 3952940 3953898 +0.0% 3989360 +0.9%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 3420373±3% 3643964 +6.5% 3644910±5% +6.6%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 2609635±2% 2582310±3% -1.0% 2780459 +6.5%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 4395001 4417196 +0.5% 4432499 +0.9%
> > lkp-skl-d01 5363977 5400003 +0.7% 5411370 +0.9%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 5274131 5311294 +0.7% 5319359 +0.9%
> > lkp-sb02 2917314 2913004 -0.1% 2935286 +0.6%
> >
> > will-it-scale.read1.processes (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 73762279±14% 69322519±10% -6.0% 69349855±13% -6.0% (result unstable)
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.701e+08 1.704e+08 +0.1% 1.705e+08 +0.2%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 63111570 63113953 +0.0% 63836573 +1.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 79247409 79424610 +0.2% 78012656 -1.6%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 67677026 68308800 +0.9% 67539106 -0.2%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 13339630 13939817 +4.5% 13766865 +3.2%
> > lkp-skl-d01 10969487 10972650 +0.0% no data
> > lkp-hsw-d01 9857342±2% 10080592±2% +2.3% 10131560 +2.8%
> > lkp-sb02 5189076 5197473 +0.2% 5163253 -0.5%
> >
> > will-it-scale.read1.threads (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 62468045±12% 73666726±7% +17.9% 79553123±12% +27.4% (result unstable)
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.62e+08 1.624e+08 +0.3% 1.614e+08 -0.3%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 58319780 59181032 +1.5% 59821353 +2.6%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 74057992 75698171 +2.2% 74990869 +1.3%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 63672959 63639652 -0.1% 64387051 +1.1%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 13489943 13526058 +0.3% 13259032 -1.7%
> > lkp-skl-d01 10297906 10338796 +0.4% 10407328 +1.1%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 9636721 9667376 +0.3% 9341147 -3.1%
> > lkp-sb02 4801938 4804496 +0.1% 4802290 +0.0%
> >
> > will-it-scale.write1.processes (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1.111e+08 1.104e+08±2% -0.7% 1.122e+08±2% +1.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.392e+08 1.399e+08 +0.5% 1.397e+08 +0.4%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 59369233 58994841 -0.6% 58715168 -1.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 61820979 CPU throttle 63593123 +2.9%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 57897587 57435605 -0.8% 56347450 -2.7%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 7814203 7918017±2% +1.3% 7669068 -1.9%
> > lkp-skl-d01 8886557 8971422 +1.0% 8818366 -0.8%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 9171001±5% 9189915 +0.2% 9483909 +3.4%
> > lkp-sb02 4475406 4475294 -0.0% 4501756 +0.6%
> >
> > will-it-scale.write1.threads (higer is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1.058e+08 1.055e+08±2% -0.2% 1.065e+08 +0.7%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1.316e+08 1.300e+08 -1.2% 1.308e+08 -0.6%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 54492421 56086678 +2.9% 55975657 +2.7%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 59360449 59003957 -0.6% 58101262 -2.1%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 53346346±2% 52530876 -1.5% 52902487 -0.8%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 7774006 7800092±2% +0.3% 7558833 -2.8%
> > lkp-skl-d01 8346174 8235695 -1.3% no data
> > lkp-hsw-d01 8636244 8655731 +0.2% 8658868 +0.3%
> > lkp-sb02 4181820 4204107 +0.5% 4182992 +0.0%
> >
> >
> > vm-scalability.anon-r-rand.throughput (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 11933873±3% 12356544±2% +3.5% 12188624 +2.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 7114424±2% 7330949±2% +3.0% 7392419 +3.9%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 6773277±5% 6492332±8% -4.1% 6543962 -3.4%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 7133846±4% 7233508 +1.4% 7013518±3% -1.7%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 4576626 4527098 -1.1% 4551679 -0.5%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 2583599 2592492 +0.3% 2588039 +0.2%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 998199±2% 1028311 +3.0% 1006460±2% +0.8%
> > lkp-sb02 570572 567854 -0.5% 568449 -0.4%
> >
> > vm-scalability.anon-r-rand-mt.throughput (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1789419 1787830 -0.1% 1788208 -0.1%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 3492595±2% 3554966±2% +1.8% 3558835±3% +1.9%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 3856238±2% 3975403±4% +3.1% 3994600 +3.6%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 3726963±11% 3809292±6% +2.2% 3871924±4% +3.9%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 2131760±3% 2033578±4% -4.6% 2130727±6% -0.0%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 2369731 2368384 -0.1% 2370252 +0.0%
> > lkp-skl-d01 1207128 1206220 -0.1% 1205801 -0.1%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 964317 992329±2% +2.9% 992099±2% +2.9%
> > lkp-sb02 567137 567346 +0.0% 566144 -0.2%
> >
> > vm-scalability.lru-file-mmap-read.throughput (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 19560469±6% 23018999 +17.7% 23418800 +19.7%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 17769135±14% 26141676±3% +47.1% 26284723±5% +47.9%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 14056512 13578884 -3.4% 13146214 -6.5%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 15336542 14737654 -3.9% 14088159 -8.1%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 16275498 15756296 -3.2% 15018090 -7.7%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 11272160 11237231 -0.3% 11310047 +0.3%
> > lkp-skl-d01 7322119 7324569 +0.0% 7184148 -1.9%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 6449234 6404542 -0.7% 6356141 -1.4%
> > lkp-sb02 3517943 3520668 +0.1% 3527309 +0.3%
> >
> > vm-scalability.lru-file-mmap-read-rand.throughput (higher is better)
> >
> > machine batch=31 batch=63 batch=127
> > lkp-skl-4sp1 1689052 1697553 +0.5% 1698726 +0.6%
> > lkp-bdw-ex1 1675246 1699764 +1.5% 1712226 +2.2%
> > lkp-skl-2sp2 1800533 1799749 -0.0% 1800581 +0.0%
> > lkp-bdw-ep2 1807422 1807758 +0.0% 1804932 -0.1%
> > lkp-hsw-ep2 1809807 1808781 -0.1% 1807811 -0.1%
> > lkp-wsm-ep2 1800198 1802434 +0.1% 1801236 +0.1%
> > lkp-skl-d01 696689 695537 -0.2% 694106 -0.4%
> > lkp-hsw-d01 698364 698666 +0.0% 696686 -0.2%
> > lkp-sb02 258939 258787 -0.1% 258199 -0.3%
> >
> > Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
> > ---
> > mm/page_alloc.c | 9 ++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > index 07b3c23762ad..27780310e5e7 100644
> > --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> > +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> > @@ -5566,13 +5566,12 @@ static int zone_batchsize(struct zone *zone)
> >
> > /*
> > * The per-cpu-pages pools are set to around 1000th of the
> > - * size of the zone. But no more than 1/2 of a meg.
> > - *
> > - * OK, so we don't know how big the cache is. So guess.
> > + * size of the zone.
> > */
> > batch = zone->managed_pages / 1024;
> > - if (batch * PAGE_SIZE > 512 * 1024)
> > - batch = (512 * 1024) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > + /* But no more than a meg. */
> > + if (batch * PAGE_SIZE > 1024 * 1024)
> > + batch = (1024 * 1024) / PAGE_SIZE;
> > batch /= 4; /* We effectively *= 4 below */
> > if (batch < 1)
> > batch = 1;
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer
MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
Powered by blists - more mailing lists