linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3% regression

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]

Date:   Wed, 5 Dec 2018 12:43:53 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, ying.huang@...el.com,
        s.priebe@...fihost.ag,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        alex.williamson@...hat.com, lkp@...org, kirill@...temov.name,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        zi.yan@...rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3%
 regression

On Wed 05-12-18 10:43:43, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 10:08:56AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 04-12-18 16:47:23, David Rientjes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > 
> > > > What should also be kept in mind is that we should avoid conflating
> > > > locality preferences with THP preferences which is separate from THP
> > > > allocation latencies. The whole __GFP_THISNODE approach is pushing too
> > > > hard on locality versus huge pages when MADV_HUGEPAGE or always-defrag
> > > > are used which is very unfortunate given that MADV_HUGEPAGE in itself says
> > > > nothing about locality -- that is the business of other madvise flags or
> > > > a specific policy.
> > > 
> > > We currently lack those other madvise modes or mempolicies: mbind() is not 
> > > a viable alternative because we do not want to oom kill when local memory 
> > > is depleted, we want to fallback to remote memory.
> > 
> > Yes, there was a clear agreement that there is no suitable mempolicy
> > right now and there were proposals to introduce MPOL_NODE_RECLAIM to
> > introduce that behavior. This would be an improvement regardless of THP
> > because global node-reclaim policy was simply a disaster we had to turn
> > off by default and the global semantic was a reason people just gave up
> > using it completely.
> > 
> 
> The alternative is to define a clear semantic for THP allocation
> requests that are considered "light" regardless of whether that needs a
> GFP flag or not. A sensible default might be
> 
> o Allocate THP local if the amount of work is light or non-existant.
> o Allocate THP remote if one is freely available with no additional work
>   (maybe kick remote kcompactd)
> o Allocate base page local if the amount of work is light or non-existant
> o Allocate base page remote if the amount of work is light or non-existant
> o Do heavy work in zonelist order until a base page is allocated somewhere

I am not sure about the ordering without a deeper consideration but I
thin THP should reflect the approach we have for base bages.

> It's not something could be clearly expressed with either NORETRY or
> THISNODE but longer-term might be saner than chopping and changing on
> which flags are more important and which workload is most relevant. That
> runs the risk of a revert-loop where each person targetting one workload
> reverts one patch to insert another until someone throws up their hands
> in frustration and just carries patches out-of-tree long-term.

Fully agreed!

> I'm not going to prototype something along these lines for now as
> fundamentally a better compaction could cut out part of the root cause
> of pain.

Yes there is some ground work to be done first.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs