| 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: <CAJuCfpF_wbbtsUrrWZ652t+V04HvyDPUyXEa7FOCJcBtQM2aqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 10:08:05 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.net,
willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, paulmck@...nel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
lstoakes@...il.com, peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
gurua@...gle.com, arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com,
leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/33] Per-VMA locks
On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:06 AM Punit Agrawal
<punit.agrawal@...edance.com> wrote:
>
> Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@...edance.com> writes:
>
> > Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> writes:
> >
> >> Previous version:
> >> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com/
> >> RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220901173516.702122-1-surenb@google.com/
> >>
> >> LWN article describing the feature:
> >> https://lwn.net/Articles/906852/
> >>
> >> Per-vma locks idea that was discussed during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM
> >> last year [2], which concluded with suggestion that “a reader/writer
> >> semaphore could be put into the VMA itself; that would have the effect of
> >> using the VMA as a sort of range lock. There would still be contention at
> >> the VMA level, but it would be an improvement.” This patchset implements
> >> this suggested approach.
> >
> > I took the patches for a spin on a 2-socket 32 core (64 threads) system
> > with Intel 8336C (Ice Lake) and 512GB of RAM.
> >
> > For the initial testing, "pft-threads" from the mm-tests suite[0] was
> > used. The test mmaps a memory region (~100GB on the test system) and
> > triggers access by a number of threads executing in parallel. For each
> > degree of parallelism, the test is repeated 10 times to get a better
> > feel for the behaviour. Below is an excerpt of the harmonic mean
> > reported by 'compare_kernel' script[1] included with mm-tests.
> >
> > The first column is results for mm-unstable as of 2023-02-10, the second
> > column is the patches posted here while the third column includes
> > optimizations to reclaim some of the observed regression.
> >
> > From the results, there is a drop in page fault/second for low number of
> > CPUs but good improvement with higher CPUs.
> >
> > 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4
> > mm-unstable-20230210 pvl-v2 pvl-v2+opt
> >
> > Hmean faults/cpu-1 898792.9338 ( 0.00%) 894597.0474 * -0.47%* 895933.2782 * -0.32%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-4 751903.9803 ( 0.00%) 677764.2975 * -9.86%* 688643.8163 * -8.41%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-7 612275.5663 ( 0.00%) 565363.4137 * -7.66%* 597538.9396 * -2.41%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-12 434460.9074 ( 0.00%) 410974.2708 * -5.41%* 452501.4290 * 4.15%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-21 291475.5165 ( 0.00%) 293936.8460 ( 0.84%) 308712.2434 * 5.91%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-30 218021.3980 ( 0.00%) 228265.0559 * 4.70%* 241897.5225 * 10.95%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-48 141798.5030 ( 0.00%) 162322.5972 * 14.47%* 166081.9459 * 17.13%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-79 90060.9577 ( 0.00%) 107028.7779 * 18.84%* 109810.4488 * 21.93%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-110 64729.3561 ( 0.00%) 80597.7246 * 24.51%* 83134.0679 * 28.43%*
> > Hmean faults/cpu-128 55740.1334 ( 0.00%) 68395.4426 * 22.70%* 69248.2836 * 24.23%*
> >
> > Hmean faults/sec-1 898781.7694 ( 0.00%) 894247.3174 * -0.50%* 894440.3118 * -0.48%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-4 2965588.9697 ( 0.00%) 2683651.5664 * -9.51%* 2726450.9710 * -8.06%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-7 4144512.3996 ( 0.00%) 3891644.2128 * -6.10%* 4099918.8601 ( -1.08%)
> > Hmean faults/sec-12 4969513.6934 ( 0.00%) 4829731.4355 * -2.81%* 5264682.7371 * 5.94%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-21 5814379.4789 ( 0.00%) 5941405.3116 * 2.18%* 6263716.3903 * 7.73%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-30 6153685.3709 ( 0.00%) 6489311.6634 * 5.45%* 6910843.5858 * 12.30%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-48 6197953.1327 ( 0.00%) 7216320.7727 * 16.43%* 7412782.2927 * 19.60%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-79 6167135.3738 ( 0.00%) 7425927.1022 * 20.41%* 7637042.2198 * 23.83%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-110 6264768.2247 ( 0.00%) 7813329.3863 * 24.72%* 7984344.4005 * 27.45%*
> > Hmean faults/sec-128 6460727.8216 ( 0.00%) 7875664.8999 * 21.90%* 8049910.3601 * 24.60%*
>
>
> The above workload represent the worst case with regards to per-VMA
> locks as it creates a single large VMA. As a follow-up, I modified
> pft[2] to create a VMA per thread to understand the behaviour in
> scenarios where per-VMA locks should show the most benefit.
>
> 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4
> mm-unstable-20230210 pvl-v2 pvl-v2+opt
>
> Hmean faults/cpu-1 905497.4354 ( 0.00%) 888736.5570 * -1.85%* 888695.2675 * -1.86%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-4 758519.2719 ( 0.00%) 812103.1991 * 7.06%* 825077.9277 * 8.77%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-7 617153.8038 ( 0.00%) 729943.4518 * 18.28%* 770872.3161 * 24.91%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-12 424848.5266 ( 0.00%) 550357.2856 * 29.54%* 597478.5634 * 40.63%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-21 290142.9988 ( 0.00%) 383668.3190 * 32.23%* 433376.8959 * 49.37%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-30 218705.2915 ( 0.00%) 299888.5533 * 37.12%* 342640.6153 * 56.67%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-48 142842.3372 ( 0.00%) 206498.2605 * 44.56%* 240306.3442 * 68.23%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-79 90706.1425 ( 0.00%) 160006.6800 * 76.40%* 185298.4326 * 104.28%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-110 67011.9297 ( 0.00%) 143536.0062 * 114.19%* 162688.8015 * 142.78%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-128 55986.4986 ( 0.00%) 136550.8760 * 143.90%* 152718.8713 * 172.78%*
>
> Hmean faults/sec-1 905492.1265 ( 0.00%) 887244.6592 * -2.02%* 887775.6079 * -1.96%*
> Hmean faults/sec-4 2994284.4204 ( 0.00%) 3154236.9408 * 5.34%* 3221994.8465 * 7.60%*
> Hmean faults/sec-7 4177411.3461 ( 0.00%) 4933286.4045 * 18.09%* 5202347.2077 * 24.54%*
> Hmean faults/sec-12 4892848.3633 ( 0.00%) 6054577.0988 * 23.74%* 6511987.1142 * 33.09%*
> Hmean faults/sec-21 5823534.1820 ( 0.00%) 7637637.4162 * 31.15%* 8553362.3513 * 46.88%*
> Hmean faults/sec-30 6247210.8414 ( 0.00%) 8598150.6717 * 37.63%* 9799696.0945 * 56.87%*
> Hmean faults/sec-48 6274617.1419 ( 0.00%) 9467132.3699 * 50.88%* 11049401.9072 * 76.10%*
> Hmean faults/sec-79 6187291.4971 ( 0.00%) 11919062.5284 * 92.64%* 13420825.3820 * 116.91%*
> Hmean faults/sec-110 6454542.3239 ( 0.00%) 15050228.1869 * 133.17%* 16667873.7618 * 158.23%*
> Hmean faults/sec-128 6472970.8548 ( 0.00%) 16647275.6575 * 157.18%* 18680029.3714 * 188.59%*
>
> As expected, the tests highlight the improved scalability as core count
> increases.
Thanks for trying this, Punit! This is very encouraging.
>
> > [0] https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests
> > [1] https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests/blob/master/compare-kernels.sh
>
> [2] https://github.com/gormanm/pft/pull/1/commits/8fe554a3d8b4f5947cd00d4b46f97178b8ba8752
Powered by blists - more mailing lists