| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2021 11:19:10 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
Michal Koutn?? <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [mm] 2d146aa3aa: vm-scalability.throughput -36.4% regression
On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 07:59:53PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 4:59 PM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -36.4% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
> > 2d146aa3aa84 ("mm: memcontrol: switch to rstat")
>
> Hmm. I guess some cost is to be expected, but that's a big regression.
>
> I'm not sure what the code ends up doing, and how relevant this test
> is, but Johannes - could you please take a look?
>
> I can't make heads nor tails of the profile. The profile kind of points at this:
>
> > 2.77 ą 12% +27.4 30.19 ą 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
> > 2.86 ą 12% +27.4 30.29 ą 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> > 2.77 ą 12% +27.4 30.21 ą 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.lock_page_lruvec_irqsave
> > 4.26 ą 10% +28.1 32.32 ą 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.lru_cache_add
> > 4.15 ą 10% +28.2 32.33 ą 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__pagevec_lru_add
>
> and that seems to be from the chain __do_fault -> shmem_fault ->
> shmem_getpage_gfp -> lru_cache_add -> __pagevec_lru_add ->
> lock_page_lruvec_irqsave -> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave ->
> native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath.
>
> That shmem_fault codepath being hot may make sense for sokme VM
> scalability test. But it seems to make little sense when I look at the
> commit that it bisected to.
>
> We had another report of this commit causing a much more reasonable
> small slowdown (-2.8%) back in May.
>
> I'm not sure what's up with this new report. Johannes, does this make
> sense to you?
>
> Is it perhaps another "unlucky cache line placement" thing? Or has the
> statistics changes just changed the behavior of the test?
Yes, this is probably related with cache line.
We just used perf-c2c tool profile the data for 2d146aa3aa and its
parent commit. There is very few false sharing for the parent commit,
while there is some for 2d146aa3aa, one hottest spot is:
#
# ----- HITM ----- -- Store Refs -- --------- Data address --------- ---------- cycles ---------- Total cpu Shared
# Num RmtHitm LclHitm L1 Hit L1 Miss Offset Node PA cnt Code address rmt hitm lcl hitm load records cnt Symbol Object Source:Line Node
# ..... ....... ....... ....... ....... .................. .... ...... .................. ........ ........ ........ ....... ........ .............................. ................. ..................... ....
#
-------------------------------------------------------------
0 0 2036 0 0 0xffff8881c0642000
-------------------------------------------------------------
0.00% 45.58% 0.00% 0.00% 0x0 0 1 0xffffffff8137071c 0 2877 3221 8969 191 [k] __mod_memcg_state [kernel.kallsyms] memcontrol.c:772 0 1 2 3
0.00% 20.92% 0.00% 0.00% 0x0 0 1 0xffffffff8137091c 0 3027 2841 6626 188 [k] __count_memcg_events [kernel.kallsyms] memcontrol.c:920 0 1 2 3
0.00% 17.88% 0.00% 0.00% 0x10 0 1 0xffffffff8136d7ad 0 3047 3326 3820 187 [k] get_mem_cgroup_from_mm [kernel.kallsyms] percpu-refcount.h:174 0 1 2 3
0.00% 8.94% 0.00% 0.00% 0x10 0 1 0xffffffff81375374 0 3192 3041 2067 187 [k] mem_cgroup_charge [kernel.kallsyms] percpu-refcount.h:174 0 1 2 3
And seems there is some cache false sharing when accessing mem_cgroup
member: 'struct cgroup_subsys_state', from the offset (0x0 and 0x10 here)
and the calling sites, the cache false sharing could happen between:
cgroup_rstat_updated (read memcg->css.cgroup, offset 0x0)
and
get_mem_cgroup_from_mm
css_tryget(&memcg->css) (read/write memcg->css.refcnt, offset 0x10)
(This could be wrong as many of the functions are inlined, and the
exact calling site isn't shown)
And to verify this, we did a test by adding padding between
memcg->css.cgroup and memcg->css.refcnt to push them into 2
different cache lines, and the performance are partly restored:
dc26532aed0ab25c 2d146aa3aa842d7f5065802556b 73371bf27a8a8ea68df2fbf456b
---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
65523232 ± 4% -40.8% 38817332 ± 5% -19.6% 52701654 ± 3% vm-scalability.throughput
0.58 ± 2% +3.1 3.63 +2.3 2.86 ± 4% pp.bt.__count_memcg_events.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
1.15 +3.1 4.20 +2.5 3.68 ± 4% pp.bt.page_add_file_rmap.do_set_pte.finish_fault.do_fault.__handle_mm_fault
0.53 ± 2% +3.1 3.62 +2.5 2.99 ± 2% pp.bt.__mod_memcg_lruvec_state.page_add_file_rmap.do_set_pte.finish_fault.do_fault
1.16 +3.3 4.50 +3.2 4.38 ± 3% pp.bt.__mod_memcg_lruvec_state.shmem_add_to_page_cache.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_fault.__do_fault
0.80 +3.5 4.29 +3.2 3.99 ± 3% pp.bt.__mod_memcg_state.__mod_memcg_lruvec_state.shmem_add_to_page_cache.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_fault
0.00 +3.5 3.50 +2.8 2.78 ± 2% pp.bt.__mod_memcg_state.__mod_memcg_lruvec_state.page_add_file_rmap.do_set_pte.finish_fault
52.02 ± 3% +13.3 65.29 ± 2% +4.3 56.34 ± 6% pp.bt.__do_fault.do_fault.__handle_mm_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault
51.98 ± 3% +13.3 65.27 ± 2% +4.3 56.31 ± 6% pp.bt.shmem_fault.__do_fault.do_fault.__handle_mm_fault.handle_mm_fault
51.87 ± 3% +13.3 65.21 ± 2% +4.3 56.22 ± 6% pp.bt.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_fault.__do_fault.do_fault.__handle_mm_fault
56.75 ± 3% +15.0 71.78 ± 2% +6.3 63.09 ± 5% pp.bt.__handle_mm_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
1.97 ± 3% +33.9 35.87 ± 5% +19.8 21.79 ± 23% pp.bt._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.lock_page_lruvec_irqsave.__pagevec_lru_add.lru_cache_add.shmem_getpage_gfp
1.98 ± 3% +33.9 35.89 ± 5% +19.8 21.80 ± 23% pp.bt.lock_page_lruvec_irqsave.__pagevec_lru_add.lru_cache_add.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_fault
We are still checking more, and will update if there is new data.
Btw, the test platform is a 2 sockets, 4 nodes, 96C/192T Cascadelake AP,
and if run the same case on 2S/2Nodes/48C/96T Cascade Lake SP box, the
regression is about -22.3%.
Thanks,
Feng
> Anybody?
>
> Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists