| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87a6kbq4ek.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2021 11:14:59 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
<feng.tang@...el.com>, <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<mm-commits@...r.kernel.org>, <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [mm/migrate] 9eeb73028c: stress-ng.memhotplug.ops_per_sec
-53.8% regression
Hi, Oliver,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> writes:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -53.8% regression of stress-ng.memhotplug.ops_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 9eeb73028cfb54eb06efe87c50cc014d3f1ff43e ("[patch 174/212] mm/migrate: update node demotion order on hotplug events")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Andrew-Morton/ia64-fix-typo-in-a-comment/20210903-065028
>
>
> in testcase: stress-ng
> on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU @ 2.10GHz with 192G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_threads: 10%
> disk: 1HDD
> testtime: 60s
> fs: ext4
> class: os
> test: memhotplug
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0x5003006
>
Can you help to test whether the following patch can recover the
regression?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
----------------------------8<--------------------------------------
>From 5d3e18a9f083954584932a20233ef489d9398342 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2021 16:51:44 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] mm/migrate: recover hotplug performance regression
0-Day kernel test robot reported a -53.8% performance regression for
stress-ng memhotplug test case. This patch is to recover the
regression via avoid updating the demotion order if not necessary.
Refer: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210905135932.GE15026@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
Fixes: 884a6e5d1f93 ("mm/migrate: update node demotion order on hotplug events")
Signed-off-by: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Suggested-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Cc: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: Wei Xu <weixugc@...gle.com>
Cc: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
---
mm/migrate.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c
index 77d107a4577f..20d803707497 100644
--- a/mm/migrate.c
+++ b/mm/migrate.c
@@ -1145,6 +1145,8 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
static int node_demotion[MAX_NUMNODES] __read_mostly =
{[0 ... MAX_NUMNODES - 1] = NUMA_NO_NODE};
+static bool node_demotion_disabled __read_mostly;
+
/**
* next_demotion_node() - Get the next node in the demotion path
* @node: The starting node to lookup the next node
@@ -1158,6 +1160,8 @@ int next_demotion_node(int node)
{
int target;
+ if (node_demotion_disabled)
+ return NUMA_NO_NODE;
/*
* node_demotion[] is updated without excluding this
* function from running. RCU doesn't provide any
@@ -3198,13 +3202,26 @@ static void __set_migration_target_nodes(void)
goto again;
}
+static int nr_node_has_cpu;
+static int nr_node_has_mem;
+
+static void check_set_migration_target_nodes(void)
+{
+ if (num_node_state(N_MEMORY) != nr_node_has_mem ||
+ num_node_state(N_CPU) != nr_node_has_cpu) {
+ __set_migration_target_nodes();
+ nr_node_has_mem = num_node_state(N_MEMORY);
+ nr_node_has_cpu = num_node_state(N_CPU);
+ }
+}
+
/*
* For callers that do not hold get_online_mems() already.
*/
static void set_migration_target_nodes(void)
{
get_online_mems();
- __set_migration_target_nodes();
+ check_set_migration_target_nodes();
put_online_mems();
}
@@ -3249,7 +3266,7 @@ static int __meminit migrate_on_reclaim_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
* will leave migration disabled until the offline
* completes and the MEM_OFFLINE case below runs.
*/
- disable_all_migrate_targets();
+ node_demotion_disabled = true;
break;
case MEM_OFFLINE:
case MEM_ONLINE:
@@ -3257,14 +3274,15 @@ static int __meminit migrate_on_reclaim_callback(struct notifier_block *self,
* Recalculate the target nodes once the node
* reaches its final state (online or offline).
*/
- __set_migration_target_nodes();
+ check_set_migration_target_nodes();
+ node_demotion_disabled = false;
break;
case MEM_CANCEL_OFFLINE:
/*
* MEM_GOING_OFFLINE disabled all the migration
* targets. Reenable them.
*/
- __set_migration_target_nodes();
+ node_demotion_disabled = false;
break;
case MEM_GOING_ONLINE:
case MEM_CANCEL_ONLINE:
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists