[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230608180758.z4z4ijdjgfe4mbx4@quack3>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 20:07:58 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mhocko@...e.cz,
vbabka@...e.cz, regressions@...ts.linux.dev,
Yu Ma <yu.ma@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: convert mm's rss stats into percpu_counter
On Thu 08-06-23 17:37:00, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 01:14:08PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > Somewhat late to the game but our performance testing grid has noticed this
> > commit causes a performance regression on shell-heavy workloads. For
> > example running 'make test' in git sources on our test machine with 192
> > CPUs takes about 4% longer, system time is increased by about 9%:
> >
> > before (9cd6ffa6025) after (f1a7941243c1)
> > Amean User 471.12 * 0.30%* 481.77 * -1.96%*
> > Amean System 244.47 * 0.90%* 269.13 * -9.09%*
> > Amean Elapsed 709.22 * 0.45%* 742.27 * -4.19%*
> > Amean CPU 100.00 ( 0.20%) 101.00 * -0.80%*
> >
> > Essentially this workload spawns in sequence a lot of short-lived tasks and
> > the task startup + teardown cost is what this patch increases. To
> > demonstrate this more clearly, I've written trivial (and somewhat stupid)
> > benchmark shell_bench.sh:
> >
> > for (( i = 0; i < 20000; i++ )); do
> > /bin/true
> > done
> >
> > And when run like:
> >
> > numactl -C 1 ./shell_bench.sh
> >
> > (I've forced physical CPU binding to avoid task migrating over the machine
> > and cpu frequency scaling interfering which makes the numbers much more
> > noisy) I get the following elapsed times:
> >
> > 9cd6ffa6025 f1a7941243c1
> > Avg 6.807429 7.631571
> > Stddev 0.021797 0.016483
> >
> > So some 12% regression in elapsed time. Just to be sure I've verified that
> > per-cpu allocator patch [1] does not improve these numbers in any
> > significant way.
> >
> > Where do we go from here? I think in principle the problem could be fixed
> > by being clever and when the task has only a single thread, we don't bother
> > with allocating pcpu counter (and summing it at the end) and just account
> > directly in mm_struct. When the second thread is spawned, we bite the
> > bullet, allocate pcpu counter and start with more scalable accounting.
> > These shortlived tasks in shell workloads or similar don't spawn any
> > threads so this should fix the regression. But this is obviously easier
> > said than done...
> >
>
> Thanks Jan for the report. I wanted to improve the percpu allocation to
> eliminate this regression as it was reported by intel test bot as well.
> However your suggestion seems seems targetted and reasonable as well. At
> the moment I am travelling, so not sure when I will get to this. Do you
> want to take a stab at it or you want me to do it? Also how urgent and
> sensitive this regression is for you?
It is not really urgent but eventually we'd like to get this fixed (like
within couple of months). I have currently other stuff in progress so if
you could get to it, it would be nice, otherwise I should be able to look
into this in a week or two.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists