| 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: <9c348fef-bb29-5058-3cdb-54fb8a550a88@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2022 15:23:04 +0530
From: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>,
Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Mitigate inconsistent NUMA imbalance behaviour
Hello Mel,
Sorry this took a while but discussed below are the results from
our test system.
tl;dr
o The blip we saw with tbench in NPS2 mode still exists.
o We see some regression and run to tun variation with schbench
but it is independent of this patch and depends on new idle balance.
o Short running Stream task still see benefits in NPS2 mode.
o Unixbench shows quite a lot of regression for all NPS modes with single
and multiple parallel copy. This is expected given the nature of
benchmark.
o Other than what is mentioned above, the results with this patch are
comparable to results on tip and in many cases are more stable with
the patch.
Detailed numbers are reported below:
On 5/20/2022 4:05 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Changes since V1
> o Consolidate [allow|adjust]_numa_imbalance (peterz)
> o #ifdefs around NUMA-specific pieces to build arc-allyesconfig (lkp)
>
> A problem was reported privately related to inconsistent performance of
> NAS when parallelised with MPICH. The root of the problem is that the
> initial placement is unpredictable and there can be a larger imbalance
> than expected between NUMA nodes. As there is spare capacity and the faults
> are local, the imbalance persists for a long time and performance suffers.
>
> This is not 100% an "allowed imbalance" problem as setting the allowed
> imbalance to 0 does not fix the issue but the allowed imbalance contributes
> the the performance problem. The unpredictable behaviour was most recently
> introduced by commit c6f886546cb8 ("sched/fair: Trigger the update of
> blocked load on newly idle cpu").
>
> mpirun forks hydra_pmi_proxy helpers with MPICH that go to sleep before the
> execing the target workload. As the new tasks are sleeping, the potential
> imbalance is not observed as idle_cpus does not reflect the tasks that
> will be running in the near future. How bad the problem depends on the
> timing of when fork happens and whether the new tasks are still running.
> Consequently, a large initial imbalance may not be detected until the
> workload is fully running. Once running, NUMA Balancing picks the preferred
> node based on locality and runtime load balancing often ignores the tasks
> as can_migrate_task() fails for either locality or task_hot reasons and
> instead picks unrelated tasks.
>
> This is the min, max and range of run time for mg.D parallelised with ~25%
> of the CPUs parallelised by MPICH running on a 2-socket machine (80 CPUs,
> 16 active for mg.D due to limitations of mg.D).
>
> v5.3 Min 95.84 Max 96.55 Range 0.71 Mean 96.16
> v5.7 Min 95.44 Max 96.51 Range 1.07 Mean 96.14
> v5.8 Min 96.02 Max 197.08 Range 101.06 Mean 154.70
> v5.12 Min 104.45 Max 111.03 Range 6.58 Mean 105.94
> v5.13 Min 104.38 Max 170.37 Range 65.99 Mean 117.35
> v5.13-revert-c6f886546cb8 Min 104.40 Max 110.70 Range 6.30 Mean 105.68
> v5.18rc4-baseline Min 110.78 Max 169.84 Range 59.06 Mean 131.22
> v5.18rc4-revert-c6f886546cb8 Min 113.98 Max 117.29 Range 3.31 Mean 114.71
> v5.18rc4-this_series Min 95.56 Max 163.97 Range 68.41 Mean 105.39
> v5.18rc4-this_series-revert-c6f886546cb8 Min 95.56 Max 104.86 Range 9.30 Mean 97.00
Following are the results from testing on a dual socket Zen3 system
(2 x 64C/128T) in different NPS modes.
Following is the NUMA configuration for each NPS mode on the system:
NPS1: Each socket is a NUMA node.
Total 2 NUMA nodes in the dual socket machine.
Node 0: 0-63, 128-191
Node 1: 64-127, 192-255
NPS2: Each socket is further logically divided into 2 NUMA regions.
Total 4 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
Node 0: 0-31, 128-159
Node 1: 32-63, 160-191
Node 2: 64-95, 192-223
Node 3: 96-127, 223-255
NPS4: Each socket is logically divided into 4 NUMA regions.
Total 8 NUMA nodes exist over 2 socket.
Node 0: 0-15, 128-143
Node 1: 16-31, 144-159
Node 2: 32-47, 160-175
Node 3: 48-63, 176-191
Node 4: 64-79, 192-207
Node 5: 80-95, 208-223
Node 6: 96-111, 223-231
Node 7: 112-127, 232-255
Kernel versions:
- tip: 5.18-rc1 tip sched/core
- Numa Bal: 5.18-rc1 tip sched/core + this patch
tip was at commit: a658353167bf "sched/fair: Revise comment about lb decision matrix"
Following are the results reported by the benchmarks:
~~~~~~~~~
hackbench
~~~~~~~~~
NPS1
Test: tip NUMA Bal
1-groups: 5.05 (0.00 pct) 5.01 (0.79 pct)
2-groups: 5.81 (0.00 pct) 5.78 (0.51 pct)
4-groups: 6.39 (0.00 pct) 6.31 (1.25 pct)
8-groups: 8.18 (0.00 pct) 8.09 (1.10 pct)
16-groups: 11.43 (0.00 pct) 11.58 (-1.31 pct) [System is overloaded]
NPS2
Test: tip NUMA Bal
1-groups: 5.00 (0.00 pct) 4.97 (0.60 pct)
2-groups: 5.57 (0.00 pct) 5.63 (-1.07 pct)
4-groups: 6.21 (0.00 pct) 6.17 (0.64 pct)
8-groups: 7.80 (0.00 pct) 7.68 (1.53 pct)
16-groups: 10.59 (0.00 pct) 10.51 (0.75 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip NUMA Bal
1-groups: 4.93 (0.00 pct) 4.95 (-0.40 pct)
2-groups: 5.41 (0.00 pct) 5.34 (1.29 pct)
4-groups: 6.33 (0.00 pct) 6.09 (3.79 pct)
8-groups: 7.87 (0.00 pct) 7.80 (0.88 pct)
16-groups: 10.28 (0.00 pct) 10.40 (-1.16 pct) [System is overloaded]
~~~~~~~~
schbench
~~~~~~~~
NPS1
#workers: tip NUMA Bal
1: 13.00 (0.00 pct) 12.00 (7.69 pct)
2: 36.50 (0.00 pct) 20.50 (43.83 pct)
4: 45.50 (0.00 pct) 31.00 (31.86 pct)
8: 59.00 (0.00 pct) 43.00 (27.11 pct)
16: 71.00 (0.00 pct) 68.50 (3.52 pct)
32: 101.50 (0.00 pct) 107.50 (-5.91 pct) *
32: 100.50 (0.00 pct) 103.50 (-2.98 pct) [Verification Run]
64: 182.50 (0.00 pct) 188.50 (-3.28 pct)
128: 402.50 (0.00 pct) 420.00 (-4.34 pct)
256: 928.00 (0.00 pct) 915.00 (1.40 pct)
512: 60224.00 (0.00 pct) 60096.00 (0.21 pct)
NPS2
#workers: tip NUMA Bal
1: 10.00 (0.00 pct) 10.50 (-5.00 pct) *
1: 9.00 (0.00 pct) 9.00 (0.00 pct) [Verification Run]
2: 26.00 (0.00 pct) 31.00 (-19.23 pct) *
2: 18.00 (0.00 pct) 19.50 (-8.33 pct) [Verification Run]
4: 42.00 (0.00 pct) 39.00 (7.14 pct)
8: 52.50 (0.00 pct) 52.50 (0.00 pct)
16: 66.50 (0.00 pct) 73.00 (-9.77 pct) *
16: 81.00 (0.00 pct) 75.00 (7.40 pct) [Verification Run]
32: 104.00 (0.00 pct) 105.00 (-0.96 pct)
64: 186.00 (0.00 pct) 186.00 (0.00 pct)
128: 397.00 (0.00 pct) 397.00 (0.00 pct)
256: 957.00 (0.00 pct) 946.00 (1.14 pct)
512: 60416.00 (0.00 pct) 60224.00 (0.31 pct)
NPS4
#workers: tip NUMA Bal
1: 11.00 (0.00 pct) 10.50 (4.54 pct)
2: 32.00 (0.00 pct) 33.00 (-3.12 pct) *
2: 35.00 (0.00 pct) 33.50 (4.28 pct) [Verification Run]
4: 31.50 (0.00 pct) 35.50 (-12.69 pct) *
4: 36.00 (0.00 pct) 35.00 (2.77 pct) [Verification Run]
8: 47.50 (0.00 pct) 49.00 (-3.15 pct)
16: 87.00 (0.00 pct) 91.00 (-4.59 pct)
32: 102.50 (0.00 pct) 107.00 (-4.39 pct)
64: 192.50 (0.00 pct) 186.00 (3.37 pct)
128: 404.00 (0.00 pct) 400.50 (0.86 pct)
256: 970.00 (0.00 pct) 968.00 (0.20 pct)
512: 60480.00 (0.00 pct) 60352.00 (0.21 pct)
~~~~~~
tbench
~~~~~~
NPS1
Clients: tip NUMA Bal
1 438.22 (0.00 pct) 462.66 (5.57 pct)
2 854.84 (0.00 pct) 898.10 (5.06 pct)
4 1667.69 (0.00 pct) 1668.37 (0.04 pct)
8 3018.52 (0.00 pct) 3178.64 (5.30 pct)
16 5409.81 (0.00 pct) 5547.44 (2.54 pct)
32 8437.87 (0.00 pct) 8410.80 (-0.32 pct)
64 15687.72 (0.00 pct) 15960.17 (1.73 pct)
128 27370.64 (0.00 pct) 27936.86 (2.06 pct)
256 26645.86 (0.00 pct) 23011.01 (-13.64 pct) [Know to be unstable]
512 51768.54 (0.00 pct) 52320.17 (1.06 pct)
1024 51736.04 (0.00 pct) 53242.06 (2.91 pct)
NPS2
Clients: tip NUMA Bal
1 446.30 (0.00 pct) 455.73 (2.11 pct)
2 863.29 (0.00 pct) 868.29 (0.57 pct)
4 1667.76 (0.00 pct) 1604.60 (-3.78 pct)
8 2989.28 (0.00 pct) 2859.84 (-4.33 pct)
16 5563.14 (0.00 pct) 5048.52 (-9.25 pct) *
16 5204.00 (0.00 pct) 4931.12 (-5.24 pct) [Verification Run]
32 10036.35 (0.00 pct) 9230.29 (-8.03 pct) *
32 9561.56 (0.00 pct) 9432.73 (-1.34 pct) [Verification Run]
64 16220.99 (0.00 pct) 15277.82 (-5.81 pct) *
64 16417.34 (0.00 pct) 15323.03 (-6.66 pct) [Verification Run]
128 24169.97 (0.00 pct) 26450.11 (9.43 pct)
256 25147.23 (0.00 pct) 22811.07 (-9.28 pct) [Know to be unstable]
512 49985.76 (0.00 pct) 49978.16 (-0.01 pct)
1024 51226.39 (0.00 pct) 51445.20 (0.42 pct)
NPS4
Clients: tip NUMA Bal
1 446.19 (0.00 pct) 451.40 (1.16 pct)
2 870.95 (0.00 pct) 882.02 (1.27 pct)
4 1635.15 (0.00 pct) 1662.83 (1.69 pct)
8 3057.77 (0.00 pct) 3071.47 (0.44 pct)
16 5446.06 (0.00 pct) 5660.99 (3.94 pct)
32 10159.76 (0.00 pct) 10703.73 (5.35 pct)
64 16778.72 (0.00 pct) 17979.45 (7.15 pct)
128 27336.35 (0.00 pct) 28242.78 (3.31 pct)
256 23160.91 (0.00 pct) 21820.05 (-5.78 pct) [Know to be unstable]
512 48981.68 (0.00 pct) 51492.91 (5.12 pct)
1024 50575.32 (0.00 pct) 51642.89 (2.11 pct)
Note: tbench resuts for 256 workers are known to have
run to run variation on the test machine. Any regression
seen for the data point can be safely ignored.
~~~~~~
Stream
~~~~~~
- 10 runs
NPS1
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 178979.35 (0.00 pct) 174059.37 (-2.74 pct)
Scale: 195878.87 (0.00 pct) 201516.78 (2.87 pct)
Add: 218987.24 (0.00 pct) 232609.27 (6.22 pct)
Triad: 215253.14 (0.00 pct) 227262.98 (5.57 pct)
NPS2
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 146772.26 (0.00 pct) 162532.71 (10.73 pct)
Scale: 183512.68 (0.00 pct) 194247.05 (5.84 pct)
Add: 197574.24 (0.00 pct) 213254.88 (7.93 pct)
Triad: 195992.83 (0.00 pct) 211433.42 (7.87 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 174993.71 (0.00 pct) 241688.13 (38.11 pct)
Scale: 221704.93 (0.00 pct) 218607.33 (-1.39 pct)
Add: 252474.35 (0.00 pct) 264950.80 (4.94 pct)
Triad: 248847.55 (0.00 pct) 259883.14 (4.43 pct)
- 100 runs
NPS1
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 217128.10 (0.00 pct) 220565.22 (1.58 pct)
Scale: 215839.44 (0.00 pct) 215465.32 (-0.17 pct)
Add: 263765.70 (0.00 pct) 263365.12 (-0.15 pct)
Triad: 251130.97 (0.00 pct) 251276.93 (0.05 pct)
NPS2
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 227274.62 (0.00 pct) 240077.10 (5.63 pct)
Scale: 219327.39 (0.00 pct) 220378.48 (0.47 pct)
Add: 275971.20 (0.00 pct) 278044.21 (0.75 pct)
Triad: 262696.11 (0.00 pct) 265308.69 (0.99 pct)
NPS4
Test: tip NUMA Bal
Copy: 254879.07 (0.00 pct) 257151.33 (0.89 pct)
Scale: 228398.61 (0.00 pct) 229324.22 (0.40 pct)
Add: 289858.40 (0.00 pct) 290531.58 (0.23 pct)
Triad: 272872.48 (0.00 pct) 274209.85 (0.49 pct)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
ycsb-mongodb
~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPS1
tip: 303718.33 (var: 1.31)
NUMA Bal: 300220.00 (var: 2.01) (-1.15pct)
NPS2
tip: 304536.33 (var: 2.46)
NUMA Bal: 301681.67 (var: 0.56) (-0.93 pct)
NPS4
tip: 301192.33 (var: 1.81)
NUMA Bal: 301025.00 (var: 1.35) (-0.05 pct)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unixbench - Spawn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPS1
Parallel Copies tip NUMA Bal
1 copy: 7020.0 (0.00 pct) 6143.7 (-12.48 pct)
4 copy: 17210.8 (0.00 pct) 16143.6 (-6.20 pct)
NPS2
Parallel Copies tip NUMA Bal
1 copy: 8923.2 (0.00 pct) 7781.0 (-12.80 pct)
4 copy: 18679.5 (0.00 pct) 17396.9 (-6.86 pct)
NPS4
Parallel Copies tip NUMA Bal
1 copy: 7873.1 (0.00 pct) 6786.7 (-13.79 pct)
4 copy: 18090.1 (0.00 pct) 17137.9 (-5.26 pct)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Run to Run Variation Details on Tip and Patched Kernel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o schbench numbers depend on the new idle balance and
the results reported are affected by external factors
in cases of both the tip and patched kernel leading
to a large amount of run to run variation.
One of the data point for example is given below:
--------------------------
- tip vs NUMA Bal (NPS2) -
--------------------------
Metric tip NUMA Bal
- 2 workers
Min : 20.00 25.00
Max : 34.00 41.00
Median : 26.00 31.00
AMean : 26.40 32.20
GMean : 26.16 31.78
HMean : 25.92 31.38
AMean Stddev : 3.81 5.51
AMean CoefVar : 14.42 pct 17.12 pct
- 2 workers (Rerun)
Min : 17.00 18.00
Max : 20.00 23.00
Median : 18.00 19.50
AMean : 18.10 19.60
GMean : 18.08 19.55
HMean : 18.06 19.49
AMean Stddev : 0.88 1.58
AMean CoefVar : 4.84 pct 8.05 pct
o tbench still shows blips in NPS2 mode. Some of the
datapoints that show regression are more stable on
the patched kernel while others show larger run to
run variation.
Below is the detailed data for each data point.
--------------------------
- tip vs NUMA Bal (NPS2) -
--------------------------
Metric tip NUMA Bal
- 16 clients
Min : 5528.71 4911.89
Max : 5584.80 5266.24
Median : 5576.24 4981.15
AMean : 5563.25 5053.09
GMean : 5563.20 5050.79
HMean : 5563.14 5048.52
AMean Stddev : 30.22 187.81
AMean CoefVar : 0.54 pct 3.72 pct
- 32 clients
Min : 9296.28 9128.25
Max : 10710.00 9342.78
Median : 10206.90 9222.35
AMean : 10071.06 9231.13
GMean : 10053.81 9230.71
HMean : 10036.35 9230.29
AMean Stddev : 716.58 107.53
AMean CoefVar : 7.12 pct 1.16 pct
- 64 clients
Min : 15222.50 15043.90
Max : 17063.60 15612.60
Median : 16488.30 15188.30
AMean : 16258.13 15281.60
GMean : 16239.68 15279.70
HMean : 16220.99 15277.82
AMean Stddev : 941.88 295.61
AMean CoefVar : 5.79 pct 1.93 pct
--------------------------------
- tip vs NUMA Bal Rerun (NPS2) -
--------------------------------
Metric tip NUMA Bal
- 16 clients
Min : 5174.01 4802.58
Max : 5239.66 5118.68
Median : 5198.76 4882.89
AMean : 5204.14 4934.72
GMean : 5204.07 4932.91
HMean : 5204.00 4931.12
AMean Stddev : 33.15 164.30
AMean CoefVar : 0.64 pct 3.33 pct
- 32 clients
Min : 9029.56 9105.11
Max : 10630.40 9750.46
Median : 9179.43 9464.88
AMean : 9613.13 9440.15
GMean : 9586.88 9436.45
HMean : 9561.56 9432.73
AMean Stddev : 884.16 323.38
AMean CoefVar : 9.20 pct 3.43 pct
- 64 clients
Min : 16190.30 14822.20
Max : 16596.00 15683.80
Median : 16471.00 15490.10
AMean : 16419.10 15332.03
GMean : 16418.22 15327.55
HMean : 16417.34 15323.03
AMean Stddev : 207.77 452.03
AMean CoefVar : 1.27 pct 2.95 pct
> [..snip..]
Other than the couple of blips in tbench and schbench, the results
overall look stable. Unixbench regression is explained by the nature
of the benchmark which prefers consolidation.
Overall, the results look good. The numbers reported with patch seems
to be comparable to that with tip and there are good gains reported
for tbench on NPS1 and NPS4 config, and Stream on NPS2 config.
Some data points that show run to run variation on tip are now relatively
more stable with the patch.
Tested-by: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>
--
Thanks and Regards,
Prateek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists