linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: 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, 12 Nov 2020 20:28:44 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc:     Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        lkp@...el.com, zhengjun.xing@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 -22.7% regression

Hi Michal,

On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 09:15:46AM +0100, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > 
> > > > We used the default configure of cgroups, not sure what configuration you
> > > > want,
> > > > could you give me more details? and here is the cgroup info of will-it-scale
> > > > process:
> > > > 
> > > > $ cat /proc/3042/cgroup
> > > > 12:hugetlb:/
> > > > 11:memory:/system.slice/lkp-bootstrap.service
> > > 
> > > OK, this means that memory controler is enabled and in use. Btw. do you
> > > get the original performance if you add one phony page_counter after the
> > > union?
> > > 
> > I add one phony page_counter after the union and re-test, the regression
> > reduced to -1.2%. It looks like the regression caused by the data structure
> > layout change.
> 
> Thanks for double checking. Could you try to cache align the
> page_counter struct? If that helps then we should figure which counters
> acks against each other by adding the alignement between the respective
> counters. 

We tried below patch to make the 'page_counter' aligned.
  
  diff --git a/include/linux/page_counter.h b/include/linux/page_counter.h
  index bab7e57..9efa6f7 100644
  --- a/include/linux/page_counter.h
  +++ b/include/linux/page_counter.h
  @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ struct page_counter {
   	/* legacy */
   	unsigned long watermark;
   	unsigned long failcnt;
  -};
  +} ____cacheline_internodealigned_in_smp;
   
and with it, the -22.7% peformance change turns to a small -1.7%, which
confirms the performance bump is caused by the change to data alignment.

After the patch, size of 'page_counter' increases from 104 bytes to 128
bytes, and the size of 'mem_cgroup' increases from 2880 bytes to 3008
bytes(with our kernel config). Another major data structure which
contains 'page_counter' is 'hugetlb_cgroup', whose size will change
from 912B to 1024B.

Should we make these page_counters aligned to reduce cacheline conflict?

Thanks,
Feng