Message-ID: <51d48776-ac72-432a-b768-92e7fa0ecd4b@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 9 May 2024 09:47:12 +0800
From: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>
To: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
CC: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Yang Shi <yang@...amperecomputing.com>,
	<riel@...riel.com>, <cl@...ux.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>, Ze Zuo
	<zuoze1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP
 boundaries



On 2024/5/8 23:25, Yang Shi wrote:
> On Wed, May 8, 2024 at 6:37 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2024/5/8 16:36, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 08/05/2024 08:48, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/5/8 1:17, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 8:53 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/05/2024 14:53, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024/5/7 19:13, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/intel/lmbench/blob/master/src/lat_mem_rd.c#L95
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> suggest. If you want to try something semi-randomly; it might be useful
>>>>>>>>>> to rule
>>>>>>>>>> out the arm64 contpte feature. I don't see how that would be interacting
>>>>>>>>>> here if
>>>>>>>>>> mTHP is disabled (is it?). But its new for 6.9 and arm64 only. Disable with
>>>>>>>>>> ARM64_CONTPTE (needs EXPERT) at compile time.
>>>>>>>>> I don't enabled mTHP, so it should be not related about ARM64_CONTPTE,
>>>>>>>>> but will have a try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After ARM64_CONTPTE disabled, memory read latency is similar with ARM64_CONTPTE
>>>>>>> enabled(default 6.9-rc7), still larger than align anon reverted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK thanks for trying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the source for lmbench, its malloc'ing (512M + 8K) up front and using
>>>>>> that for all sizes. That will presumably be considered "large" by malloc and
>>>>>> will be allocated using mmap. So with the patch, it will be 2M aligned. Without
>>>>>> it, it probably won't. I'm still struggling to understand why not aligning it in
>>>>>> virtual space would make it more performant though...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I'm confused too.
>>>> Me too, I get a smaps[_rollup] for 0.09375M size, the biggest difference
>>>> for anon shows below, and all attached.
>>>
>>> OK, a bit more insight; during initialization, the test makes 2 big malloc
>>> calls; the first is 1M and the second is 512M+8K. I think those 2 are the 2 vmas
>>> below (malloc is adding an extra page to the allocation, presumably for
>>> management structures).
>>>
>>> With efa7df3e3bb5 applied, the 1M allocation is allocated at a non-THP-aligned
>>> address. All of its pages are populated (see permutation() which allocates and
>>> writes it) but none of them are THP (obviously - its only 1M and THP is only
>>> enabled for 2M). But the 512M region is allocated at a THP-aligned address. And
>>> the first page is populated with a THP (presumably faulted when malloc writes to
>>> its control structure page before the application even sees the allocated buffer.
>>>
>>> In contrast, when efa7df3e3bb5 is reverted, neither of the vmas are THP-aligned,
>>> and therefore the 512M region abutts the 1M region and the vmas are merged in
>>> the kernel. So we end up with the single 525328 kB region. There are no THPs
>>> allocated here (due to alignment constraiints) so we end up with the 1M region
>>> fully populated with 4K pages as before, and only the malloc control page plus
>>> the parts of the buffer that the application actually touches being populated in
>>> the 512M region.
>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, the application never touches the 1M region during the
>>> test so it should be cache-cold. It only touches the first part of the 512M
>>> buffer it needs for the size of the test (96K here?). The latency of allocating
>>> the THP will have been consumed during test setup so I doubt we are seeing that
>>> in the test results and I don't see why having a single TLB entry vs 96K/4K=24
>>> entries would make it slower.
>>
>> It is strange, and even more stranger, I got another machine(old machine
>> 128 core and the new machine 96 core, but with same L1/L2 cache size
>> per-core), the new machine without this issue, will contact with our
>> hardware team, maybe some different configurations(prefetch or some
>> other similar hardware configurations) , thank for all the suggestion
>> and analysis!
> 
> Yes, the benchmark result strongly relies on cache and memory
> subsystem. See the below analysis.
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It would be interesting to know the address that gets returned from malloc for
>>> the 512M region if that's possible to get (in both cases)? I guess it is offset
>>> into the first page. Perhaps it is offset such that with the THP alignment case
>>> the 96K of interest ends up straddling 3 cache lines (cache line is 64K I
>>> assume?), but for the unaligned case, it ends up nicely packed in 2?
>>
>> CC zuoze, please help to check this.
>>
>> Thank again.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1) with efa7df3e3bb5 smaps
>>>>
>>>> ffff68e00000-ffff88e03000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0
>>>> Size:             524300 kB
>>>> KernelPageSize:        4 kB
>>>> MMUPageSize:           4 kB
>>>> Rss:                2048 kB
>>>> Pss:                2048 kB
>>>> Pss_Dirty:          2048 kB
>>>> Shared_Clean:          0 kB
>>>> Shared_Dirty:          0 kB
>>>> Private_Clean:         0 kB
>>>> Private_Dirty:      2048 kB
>>>> Referenced:         2048 kB
>>>> Anonymous:          2048 kB // we have 1 anon thp
>>>> KSM:                   0 kB
>>>> LazyFree:              0 kB
>>>> AnonHugePages:      2048 kB
>>>
>>> Yes one 2M THP shown here.
> 
> You have THP allocated. W/o commit efa7df3e3bb5 the address may be not
> PMD aligned (it still could be, but just not that likely), the base
> pages were allocated. To get an apple to apple comparison, you need to
> disable THP by setting /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled to
> madvise or never, then you will get base pages too (IIRC lmbench
> doesn't call MADV_HUGEPAGE).

Yes, we tested no THP(disable by sysfs) before, no different w/ or w/o
this efa7df3e3bb5.

> 
> The address alignment or page size may have a negative impact to your
> CPU's cache and memory subsystem, for example, hw prefetcher. But I
> saw a slight improvement with THP on my machine. So the behavior
> strongly depends on the hardware.
> 
I hope this efa7df3e3bb5 could improve performance so I backport it
into our kernel, but found the above issue, and same result when retest
with the 6.9-rc7, since different hardware show different results, we
will test more hardware and try to contact with hardware team, thanks 
for your help.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists