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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 14:13:36 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...hat.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        "Matthew Wilcox \(Oracle\)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        "Dave Hansen" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        "Michal Hocko" <mhocko@...e.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V8 1/3] numa balancing: Migrate on fault among multiple bound nodes

Hi, Peter,

Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> writes:

> Now, NUMA balancing can only optimize the page placement among the
> NUMA nodes if the default memory policy is used.  Because the memory
> policy specified explicitly should take precedence.  But this seems
> too strict in some situations.  For example, on a system with 4 NUMA
> nodes, if the memory of an application is bound to the node 0 and 1,
> NUMA balancing can potentially migrate the pages between the node 0
> and 1 to reduce cross-node accessing without breaking the explicit
> memory binding policy.
>
> So in this patch, we add MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING mode flag to
> set_mempolicy() when mode is MPOL_BIND.  With the flag specified, NUMA
> balancing will be enabled within the thread to optimize the page
> placement within the constrains of the specified memory binding
> policy.  With the newly added flag, the NUMA balancing control
> mechanism becomes,
>
> - sysctl knob numa_balancing can enable/disable the NUMA balancing
>   globally.
>
> - even if sysctl numa_balancing is enabled, the NUMA balancing will be
>   disabled for the memory areas or applications with the explicit memory
>   policy by default.
>
> - MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING can be used to enable the NUMA balancing for the
>   applications when specifying the explicit memory policy (MPOL_BIND).
>
> Various page placement optimization based on the NUMA balancing can be
> done with these flags.  As the first step, in this patch, if the
> memory of the application is bound to multiple nodes (MPOL_BIND), and
> in the hint page fault handler the accessing node are in the policy
> nodemask, the page will be tried to be migrated to the accessing node
> to reduce the cross-node accessing.
>
> If the newly added MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING flag is specified by an
> application on an old kernel version without its support,
> set_mempolicy() will return -1 and errno will be set to EINVAL.  The
> application can use this behavior to run on both old and new kernel
> versions.
>
> And if the MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING flag is specified for the mode other
> than MPOL_BIND, set_mempolicy() will return -1 and errno will be set
> to EINVAL as before.  Because we don't support optimization based on
> the NUMA balancing for these modes.
>
> In the previous version of the patch, we tried to reuse MPOL_MF_LAZY
> for mbind().  But that flag is tied to MPOL_MF_MOVE.*, so it seems not
> a good API/ABI for the purpose of the patch.
>
> And because it's not clear whether it's necessary to enable NUMA
> balancing for a specific memory area inside an application, so we only
> add the flag at the thread level (set_mempolicy()) instead of the
> memory area level (mbind()).  We can do that when it become necessary.
>
> To test the patch, we run a test case as follows on a 4-node machine
> with 192 GB memory (48 GB per node).
>
> 1. Change pmbench memory accessing benchmark to call set_mempolicy()
>    to bind its memory to node 1 and 3 and enable NUMA balancing.  Some
>    related code snippets are as follows,
>
>      #include <numaif.h>
>      #include <numa.h>
>
> 	struct bitmask *bmp;
> 	int ret;
>
> 	bmp = numa_parse_nodestring("1,3");
> 	ret = set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND | MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING,
> 			    bmp->maskp, bmp->size + 1);
> 	/* If MPOL_F_NUMA_BALANCING isn't supported, fall back to MPOL_BIND */
> 	if (ret < 0 && errno == EINVAL)
> 		ret = set_mempolicy(MPOL_BIND, bmp->maskp, bmp->size + 1);
> 	if (ret < 0) {
> 		perror("Failed to call set_mempolicy");
> 		exit(-1);
> 	}
>
> 2. Run a memory eater on node 3 to use 40 GB memory before running pmbench.
>
> 3. Run pmbench with 64 processes, the working-set size of each process
>    is 640 MB, so the total working-set size is 64 * 640 MB = 40 GB.  The
>    CPU and the memory (as in step 1.) of all pmbench processes is bound
>    to node 1 and 3. So, after CPU usage is balanced, some pmbench
>    processes run on the CPUs of the node 3 will access the memory of
>    the node 1.
>
> 4. After the pmbench processes run for 100 seconds, kill the memory
>    eater.  Now it's possible for some pmbench processes to migrate
>    their pages from node 1 to node 3 to reduce cross-node accessing.
>
> Test results show that, with the patch, the pages can be migrated from
> node 1 to node 3 after killing the memory eater, and the pmbench score
> can increase about 17.5%.
>
> Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
> Cc: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org

It seems that Andrew has no objection to this patch.  Is it possible for
you to merge it through your tree?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists