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
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87bk3w2he5.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 15:38:26 +0800
From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,  <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>,
  <lkp@...el.com>,  <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,  Andrew Morton
 <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,  David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,  John
 Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,  Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
  Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,  Ryan Roberts
 <ryan.roberts@....com>,  <linux-mm@...ck.org>,  <feng.tang@...el.com>,
  <fengwei.yin@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [mm] d2136d749d: vm-scalability.throughput -7.1%
 regression

Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com> writes:

> On 2024/6/20 10:39, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Hello,
>> kernel test robot noticed a -7.1% regression of
>> vm-scalability.throughput on:
>> commit: d2136d749d76af980b3accd72704eea4eab625bd ("mm: support
>> multi-size THP numa balancing")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> [still regression on linus/master
>> 92e5605a199efbaee59fb19e15d6cc2103a04ec2]
>> testcase: vm-scalability
>> test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz (Ice Lake) with 256G memory
>> parameters:
>> 	runtime: 300s
>> 	size: 512G
>> 	test: anon-cow-rand-hugetlb
>> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> Thanks for reporting. IIUC numa balancing will not scan hugetlb VMA,
> I'm not sure how this patch affects the performance of hugetlb cow,
> but let me try to reproduce it.
>
>
>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
>> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202406201010.a1344783-oliver.sang@intel.com
>> Details are as below:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
>> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240620/202406201010.a1344783-oliver.sang@intel.com
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/runtime/size/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>>    gcc-13/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/300s/512G/lkp-icl-2sp2/anon-cow-rand-hugetlb/vm-scalability
>> commit:
>>    6b0ed7b3c7 ("mm: factor out the numa mapping rebuilding into a new helper")
>>    d2136d749d ("mm: support multi-size THP numa balancing")
>> 6b0ed7b3c77547d2 d2136d749d76af980b3accd7270
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>>           %stddev     %change         %stddev
>>               \          |                \
>>       12.02            -1.3       10.72 ±  4%  mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
>>     1228757            +3.0%    1265679        proc-vmstat.pgfault

Also from other proc-vmstat stats,

     21770  36%      +6.1%      23098  28%  proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults
      6168 107%     +48.8%       9180  18%  proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
    154537  15%     +23.5%     190883  17%  proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates

After your patch, more hint page faults occurs, I think this is expected.

Then, tasks may be moved between sockets because of that, so that some
hugetlb page access becomes remote?

>>     7392513            -7.1%    6865649        vm-scalability.throughput
>>       17356            +9.4%      18986        vm-scalability.time.user_time
>>        0.32 ± 22%     -36.9%       0.20 ± 17%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.h_nr_running.stddev
>>       28657 ± 86%     -90.8%       2640 ± 19%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load.stddev
>>        0.28 ± 35%     -52.1%       0.13 ± 29%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_running.stddev
>>      299.88 ± 27%     -39.6%     181.04 ± 23%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.stddev
>>      284.88 ± 32%     -44.0%     159.65 ± 27%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.stddev
>>        0.32 ± 22%     -37.2%       0.20 ± 17%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.stddev
>>   1.584e+10 ±  2%      -6.9%  1.476e+10 ±  3%  perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
>>    11673151 ±  3%      -6.3%   10935072 ±  4%  perf-stat.i.branch-misses
>>        4.90            +3.5%       5.07        perf-stat.i.cpi
>>      333.40            +7.5%     358.32        perf-stat.i.cycles-between-cache-misses
>>   6.787e+10 ±  2%      -6.8%  6.324e+10 ±  3%  perf-stat.i.instructions
>>        0.25            -6.2%       0.24        perf-stat.i.ipc
>>        4.19            +7.5%       4.51        perf-stat.overall.cpi
>>      323.02            +7.4%     346.94        perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
>>        0.24            -7.0%       0.22        perf-stat.overall.ipc
>>   1.549e+10 ±  2%      -6.8%  1.444e+10 ±  3%  perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
>>   6.634e+10 ±  2%      -6.7%  6.186e+10 ±  3%  perf-stat.ps.instructions
>>       17.33 ± 77%     -10.6        6.72 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
>>       17.30 ± 77%     -10.6        6.71 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
>>       17.30 ± 77%     -10.6        6.71 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
>>       17.28 ± 77%     -10.6        6.70 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault.do_access
>>       17.27 ± 77%     -10.6        6.70 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.hugetlb_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
>>       13.65 ± 76%      -8.4        5.29 ±168%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.hugetlb_wp.hugetlb_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault
>>       13.37 ± 76%      -8.2        5.18 ±168%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.copy_user_large_folio.hugetlb_wp.hugetlb_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault
>>       13.35 ± 76%      -8.2        5.18 ±168%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.copy_subpage.copy_user_large_folio.hugetlb_wp.hugetlb_fault.handle_mm_fault
>>       13.23 ± 76%      -8.1        5.13 ±168%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string.copy_subpage.copy_user_large_folio.hugetlb_wp.hugetlb_fault
>>        3.59 ± 78%      -2.2        1.39 ±169%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__mutex_lock.hugetlb_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault
>>       17.35 ± 77%     -10.6        6.73 ±169%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.asm_exc_page_fault
>>       17.32 ± 77%     -10.6        6.72 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_user_addr_fault
>>       17.32 ± 77%     -10.6        6.72 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.exc_page_fault
>>       17.30 ± 77%     -10.6        6.71 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.handle_mm_fault
>>       17.28 ± 77%     -10.6        6.70 ±169%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.hugetlb_fault
>>       13.65 ± 76%      -8.4        5.29 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.hugetlb_wp
>>       13.37 ± 76%      -8.2        5.18 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.copy_user_large_folio
>>       13.35 ± 76%      -8.2        5.18 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.copy_subpage
>>       13.34 ± 76%      -8.2        5.17 ±168%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string
>>        3.59 ± 78%      -2.2        1.39 ±169%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__mutex_lock
>>       13.24 ± 76%      -8.1        5.13 ±168%  perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.copy_mc_enhanced_fast_string
>> Disclaimer:
>> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
>> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
>> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>> 

--
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ