| 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: <877cazs0p7.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 08:44:36 +0800 From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com> To: "Sridhar, Kanchana P" <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com> Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>, "hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>, "yosryahmed@...gle.com" <yosryahmed@...gle.com>, "nphamcs@...il.com" <nphamcs@...il.com>, "chengming.zhou@...ux.dev" <chengming.zhou@...ux.dev>, "usamaarif642@...il.com" <usamaarif642@...il.com>, "shakeel.butt@...ux.dev" <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>, "ryan.roberts@....com" <ryan.roberts@....com>, "21cnbao@...il.com" <21cnbao@...il.com>, "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, "Zou, Nanhai" <nanhai.zou@...el.com>, "Feghali, Wajdi K" <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>, "Gopal, Vinodh" <vinodh.gopal@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios "Sridhar, Kanchana P" <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com> writes: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2024 11:35 PM >> To: Sridhar, Kanchana P <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com> >> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-mm@...ck.org; >> hannes@...xchg.org; yosryahmed@...gle.com; nphamcs@...il.com; >> chengming.zhou@...ux.dev; usamaarif642@...il.com; >> shakeel.butt@...ux.dev; ryan.roberts@....com; 21cnbao@...il.com; >> akpm@...ux-foundation.org; Zou, Nanhai <nanhai.zou@...el.com>; Feghali, >> Wajdi K <wajdi.k.feghali@...el.com>; Gopal, Vinodh >> <vinodh.gopal@...el.com> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] mm: ZSWAP swap-out of mTHP folios >> >> Kanchana P Sridhar <kanchana.p.sridhar@...el.com> writes: >> >> [snip] >> >> > >> > Case 1: Comparing zswap 4K vs. zswap mTHP >> > ========================================= >> > >> > In this scenario, the "before" is CONFIG_THP_SWAP set to off, that results in >> > 64K/2M (m)THP to be split into 4K folios that get processed by zswap. >> > >> > The "after" is CONFIG_THP_SWAP set to on, and this patch-series, that >> results >> > in 64K/2M (m)THP to not be split, and processed by zswap. >> > >> > 64KB mTHP (cgroup memory.high set to 40G): >> > ========================================== >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > mm-unstable 9-23-2024 zswap-mTHP Change wrt >> > CONFIG_THP_SWAP=N CONFIG_THP_SWAP=Y Baseline >> > Baseline >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > ZSWAP compressor zstd deflate- zstd deflate- zstd deflate- >> > iaa iaa iaa >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Throughput (KB/s) 143,323 125,485 153,550 129,609 7% 3% >> > elapsed time (sec) 24.97 25.42 23.90 25.19 4% 1% >> > sys time (sec) 822.72 750.96 757.70 731.13 8% 3% >> > memcg_high 132,743 169,825 148,075 192,744 >> > memcg_swap_fail 639,067 841,553 2,204 2,215 >> > pswpin 0 0 0 0 >> > pswpout 0 0 0 0 >> > zswpin 795 873 760 902 >> > zswpout 10,011,266 13,195,137 10,010,017 13,193,554 >> > thp_swpout 0 0 0 0 >> > thp_swpout_ 0 0 0 0 >> > fallback >> > 64kB-mthp_ 639,065 841,553 2,204 2,215 >> > swpout_fallback >> > pgmajfault 2,861 2,924 3,054 3,259 >> > ZSWPOUT-64kB n/a n/a 623,451 822,268 >> > SWPOUT-64kB 0 0 0 0 >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> >> IIUC, the throughput is the sum of throughput of all usemem processes? >> >> One possible issue of usemem test case is the "imbalance" issue. That >> is, some usemem processes may swap-out/swap-in less, so the score is >> very high; while some other processes may swap-out/swap-in more, so the >> score is very low. Sometimes, the total score decreases, but the scores >> of usemem processes are more balanced, so that the performance should be >> considered better. And, in general, we should make usemem score >> balanced among processes via say longer test time. Can you check this >> in your test results? > > Actually, the throughput data listed in the cover-letter is the average of > all the usemem processes. Your observation about the "imbalance" issue is > right. Some processes see a higher throughput than others. I have noticed > that the throughputs progressively reduce as the individual processes exit > and print their stats. > > Listed below are the stats from two runs of usemem70: sleep 10 and sleep 30. > Both are run with a cgroup mem-limit of 40G. Data is with v7, 64K folios are > enabled, zswap uses zstd. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > sleep 10 sleep 30 > Throughput (KB/s) Throughput (KB/s) > ----------------------------------------------- > 181,540 191,686 > 179,651 191,459 > 179,068 188,834 > 177,244 187,568 > 177,215 186,703 > 176,565 185,584 > 176,546 185,370 > 176,470 185,021 > 176,214 184,303 > 176,128 184,040 > 175,279 183,932 > 174,745 180,831 > 173,935 179,418 > 161,546 168,014 > 160,332 167,540 > 160,122 167,364 > 159,613 167,020 > 159,546 166,590 > 159,021 166,483 > 158,845 166,418 > 158,426 166,264 > 158,396 166,066 > 158,371 165,944 > 158,298 165,866 > 158,250 165,884 > 158,057 165,533 > 158,011 165,532 > 157,899 165,457 > 157,894 165,424 > 157,839 165,410 > 157,731 165,407 > 157,629 165,273 > 157,626 164,867 > 157,581 164,636 > 157,471 164,266 > 157,430 164,225 > 157,287 163,290 > 156,289 153,597 > 153,970 147,494 > 148,244 147,102 > 142,907 146,111 > 142,811 145,789 > 139,171 141,168 > 136,314 140,714 > 133,616 140,111 > 132,881 139,636 > 132,729 136,943 > 132,680 136,844 > 132,248 135,726 > 132,027 135,384 > 131,929 135,270 > 131,766 134,748 > 131,667 134,733 > 131,576 134,582 > 131,396 134,302 > 131,351 134,160 > 131,135 134,102 > 130,885 134,097 > 130,854 134,058 > 130,767 134,006 > 130,666 133,960 > 130,647 133,894 > 130,152 133,837 > 130,006 133,747 > 129,921 133,679 > 129,856 133,666 > 129,377 133,564 > 128,366 133,331 > 127,988 132,938 > 126,903 132,746 > ----------------------------------------------- > sum 10,526,916 10,919,561 > average 150,385 155,994 > stddev 17,551 19,633 > ----------------------------------------------- > elapsed 24.40 43.66 > time (sec) > sys time 806.25 766.05 > (sec) > zswpout 10,008,713 10,008,407 > 64K folio 623,463 623,629 > swpout > ----------------------------------------------- Although there are some imbalance, I don't find it's too much. So, I think the test result is reasonable. Please pay attention to the imbalance issue in the future tests. > As we increase the time for which allocations are maintained, > there seems to be a slight improvement in throughput, but the > variance increases as well. The processes with lower throughput > could be the ones that handle the memcg being over limit by > doing reclaim, possibly before they can allocate. > > Interestingly, the longer test time does seem to reduce the amount > of reclaim (hence lower sys time), but more 64K large folios seem to > be reclaimed. Could this mean that with longer test time (sleep 30), > more cold memory residing in large folios is getting reclaimed, as > against memory just relinquished by the exiting processes? I don't think longer sleep time in test helps much to balance. Can you try with less process, and larger memory size per process? I guess that this will improve balance. -- Best Regards, Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists