linux-kernel - Re: [mm/writeback] 8d92890bd6: will-it-scale.per_process

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:   Thu, 15 Oct 2020 11:08:43 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...merspace.com>,
        Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
        zhengjun.xing@...el.com
Subject: Re: [mm/writeback] 8d92890bd6: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -15.3%
 regression

On Thu 15-10-20 08:46:01, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14 2020, Jan Kara wrote:
> 
> > On Wed 14-10-20 16:47:06, kernel test robot wrote:
> >> Greeting,
> >> 
> >> FYI, we noticed a -15.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due
> >> to commit:
> >> 
> >> commit: 8d92890bd6b8502d6aee4b37430ae6444ade7a8c ("mm/writeback: discard
> >> NR_UNSTABLE_NFS, use NR_WRITEBACK instead")
> >> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >
> > Thanks for report but it doesn't quite make sense to me. If we omit
> > reporting & NFS changes in that commit (which is code not excercised by
> > this benchmark), what remains are changes like:
> >
> >         nr_pages += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > -       nr_pages += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> >         nr_pages += node_page_state(pgdat, NR_WRITEBACK);
> > ...
> > -               nr_reclaimable = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > -                                       global_node_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > +               nr_reclaimable = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> > ...
> > -       gdtc->dirty = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > -                     global_node_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > +       gdtc->dirty = global_node_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY);
> >
> > So if there's any negative performance impact of these changes, they're
> > likely due to code alignment changes or something like that... So I don't
> > think there's much to do here since optimal code alignment is highly specific
> > to a particular CPU etc.
> 
> I agree, it seems odd.
> 
> Removing NR_UNSTABLE_NFS from enum node_stat_item would renumber all the
> following value and would, I think, change NR_DIRTIED from 32 to 31.
> Might that move something to a different cache line and change some
> contention?

Interesting theory, it could be possible.

> That would be easy enough to test: just re-add NR_UNSTABLE_NFS.

Yeah, easy enough to test. Patch for this is attached. 0-day people, can
you check whether applying this patch changes anything in your perf
numbers?

> I have no experience reading will-it-scale results, but 15% does seem
> like a lot.

Well, will-it-scale is a micro-benchmark that usually runs in extremely
parallel loads so 15% can be caused by fairly obscure issues like different
code alignment of a hot loop, slightly different cache line sharing, or
so...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR