linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: memcg: add a new MEMCG_UPDATE

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, 6 Jan 2021 10:12:13 +0800
From:   Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To:     Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, andi.kleen@...el.com,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: memcg: add a new MEMCG_UPDATE_BATCH

Hi Shakeel,

On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 04:47:33PM -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 6:35 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > When profiling memory cgroup involved benchmarking, status update
> > sometimes take quite some CPU cycles. Current MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH
> > is used for both charging and statistics/events updating, and is
> > set to 32, which may be good for accuracy of memcg charging, but
> > too small for stats update which causes concurrent access to global
> > stats data instead of per-cpu ones.
> >
> > So handle them differently, by adding a new bigger batch number
> > for stats updating, while keeping the value for charging (though
> > comments in memcontrol.h suggests to consider a bigger value too)
> >
> > The new batch is set to 512, which considers 2MB huge pages (512
> > pages), as the check logic mostly is:
> >
> >     if (x > BATCH), then skip updating global data
> >
> > so it will save 50% global data updating for 2MB pages
> >
> > Following are some performance data with the patch, against
> > v5.11-rc1, on several generations of Xeon platforms. Each category
> > below has several subcases run on different platform, and only the
> > worst and best scores are listed:
> >
> > fio:                             +2.0% ~  +6.8%
> > will-it-scale/malloc:            -0.9% ~  +6.2%
> > will-it-scale/page_fault1:       no change
> > will-it-scale/page_fault2:      +13.7% ~ +26.2%
> >
> > One thought is it could be dynamically calculated according to
> > memcg limit and number of CPUs, and another is to add a periodic
> > syncing of the data for accuracy reason similar to vmstat, as
> > suggested by Ying.
> >
> 
> I am going to push back on this change. On a large system where jobs
> can run on any available cpu, this will totally mess up the stats
> (which is actually what happens on our production servers). These
> stats are used for multiple purposes like debugging or understanding
> the memory usage of the job or doing data analysis.

Thanks for sharing the usage case, and I agree  it will bring more
trouble for debugging and analyzing.

Though we lack real world load, but the micro benchmarks do show
obvious benefits, 0day rebot reported a 43.4% improvement for
vm-scalability lru-shm case, and it is up to +60% against 5.11-rc1.

The memory cgroup stats updating hotspots has been on our radar
for a long time, which could be seen in the perf profile data.

So I am wondering if we could make the batch a configurable knob,
so that it can benefit workload without need for accurate stats.

One further thought is, there are quite some "BATCH" number in
kernel for perf-cpu/global data updating, maybe we can add a
global flag 'sysctl_need_accurate_stats' for
	if (sysctl_need_accurate_stats)
		batch = SMALLER_BATCH
	else
		batch = BIGGER_BATCH


Thanks,
Feng