linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched+mm: Track lazy active mm existence with hazard pointers

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: <f2b6f19e-0dea-4568-b3b0-832cfc950160@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 12:02:09 -0400
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
 Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
 Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>,
 Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>,
 Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
 Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@...il.com>,
 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Lai Jiangshan
 <jiangshanlai@...il.com>, Zqiang <qiang.zhang1211@...il.com>,
 Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, maged.michael@...il.com,
 Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>,
 Jonas Oberhauser <jonas.oberhauser@...weicloud.com>, rcu@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-mm@...ck.org, lkmm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] sched+mm: Track lazy active mm existence with
 hazard pointers

On 2024-10-02 17:58, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/2/24 9:53 AM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> On 2024-10-02 17:36, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-02 17:33, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:26:27AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-02 16:09, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 09:02:01PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>>>>>>> Hazard pointers appear to be a good fit for replacing refcount based lazy
>>>>>>> active mm tracking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Highlight:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> will-it-scale context_switch1_threads
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nr threads (-t)     speedup
>>>>>>>        24                +3%
>>>>>>>        48               +12%
>>>>>>>        96               +21%
>>>>>>>       192               +28%
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Impressive!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to ask...  Any data for smaller numbers of CPUs?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, but they are far less exciting ;-)
>>>>
>>>> How many CPUs in the system under test?
>>>
>>> 2 sockets, 96-core per socket:
>>>
>>> CPU(s):                   384
>>>     On-line CPU(s) list:    0-383
>>> Vendor ID:                AuthenticAMD
>>>     Model name:             AMD EPYC 9654 96-Core Processor
>>>       CPU family:           25
>>>       Model:                17
>>>       Thread(s) per core:   2
>>>       Core(s) per socket:   96
>>>       Socket(s):            2
>>>       Stepping:             1
>>>       Frequency boost:      enabled
>>>       CPU(s) scaling MHz:   68%
>>>       CPU max MHz:          3709.0000
>>>       CPU min MHz:          400.0000
>>>       BogoMIPS:             4800.00
>>>
>>> Note that Jens Axboe got even more impressive speedups testing this
>>> on his 512-hw-thread EPYC [1] (390% speedup for 192 threads). I've
>>> noticed I had schedstats and sched debug enabled in my config, so I'll have to re-run my tests.
>>
>> A quick re-run of the 128-thread case with schedstats and sched debug
>> disabled still show around 26% speedup, similar to my prior numbers.
>>
>> I'm not sure why Jens has much better speedups on a similar system.
>>
>> I'm attaching my config in case someone spots anything obvious. Note
>> that my BIOS is configured to show 24 NUMA nodes to the kernel (one
>> NUMA node per core complex).
> 
> Here's my .config - note it's from the stock kernel run, which is why it
> still has:
> 
> CONFIG_MMU_LAZY_TLB_REFCOUNT=y
> 
> set. Have the same numa configuration as you, just end up with 32 nodes
> on this box.

Just to make sure: did you use other command line options when starting
the test program (other than -t N ?).

Thanks,

Mathieu



-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
https://www.efficios.com