netdev - Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: re-enable softirq use of per-cpu page allocator

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 15 Apr 2017 16:03:51 +0100
From:   Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, willy@...radead.org,
        peterz@...radead.org, pagupta@...hat.com, ttoukan.linux@...il.com,
        tariqt@...lanox.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, saeedm@...lanox.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm, page_alloc: re-enable softirq use of per-cpu page
 allocator

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 12:10:27PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:26:16 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:08:21 +0100 Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > IRQ context were excluded from using the Per-Cpu-Pages (PCP) lists caching
> > > of order-0 pages in commit 374ad05ab64d ("mm, page_alloc: only use per-cpu
> > > allocator for irq-safe requests").
> > > 
> > > This unfortunately also included excluded SoftIRQ.  This hurt the performance
> > > for the use-case of refilling DMA RX rings in softirq context.  
> > 
> > Out of curiosity: by how much did it "hurt"?
> >
> > <ruffles through the archives>
> > 
> > Tariq found:
> > 
> > : I disabled the page-cache (recycle) mechanism to stress the page
> > : allocator, and see a drastic degradation in BW, from 47.5 G in v4.10 to
> > : 31.4 G in v4.11-rc1 (34% drop).
> 
> I've tried to reproduce this in my home testlab, using ConnectX-4 dual
> 100Gbit/s. Hardware limits cause that I cannot reach 100Gbit/s, once a
> memory copy is performed.  (Word of warning: you need PCIe Gen3 width
> 16 (which I do have) to handle 100Gbit/s, and the memory bandwidth of
> the system also need something like 2x 12500MBytes/s (which is where my
> system failed)).
> 
> The mlx5 driver have a driver local page recycler, which I can see fail
> between 29%-38% of the time, with 8 parallel netperf TCP_STREAMs.  I
> speculate adding more streams will make in fail more.  To factor out
> the driver recycler, I simply disable it (like I believe Tariq also did).
> 
> With disabled-mlx5-recycler, 8 parallel netperf TCP_STREAMs:
> 
> Baseline v4.10.0  : 60316 Mbit/s
> Current 4.11.0-rc6: 47491 Mbit/s
> This patch        : 60662 Mbit/s
> 
> While this patch does "fix" the performance regression, it does not
> bring any noticeable improvement (as my micro-bench also indicated),
> thus I feel our previous optimization is almost nullified. (p.s. It
> does feel wrong to argue against my own patch ;-)).
> 
> The reason for the current 4.11.0-rc6 regression is lock congestion on
> the (per NUMA) page allocator lock, perf report show we spend 34.92% in
> queued_spin_lock_slowpath (compared to top#2 copy cost of 13.81% in
> copy_user_enhanced_fast_string).
> 

The lock contention is likely due to the per-cpu allocator being bypassed.

> 
> > then with this patch he found
> > 
> > : It looks very good!  I get line-rate (94Gbits/sec) with 8 streams, in
> > : comparison to less than 55Gbits/sec before.
> > 
> > Can I take this to mean that the page allocator's per-cpu-pages feature
> > ended up doubling the performance of this driver?  Better than the
> > driver's private page recycling?  I'd like to believe that, but am
> > having trouble doing so ;)
> 
> I would not conclude that. I'm also very suspicious about such big
> performance "jumps".  Tariq should also benchmark with v4.10 and a
> disabled mlx5-recycler, as I believe the results should be the same as
> after this patch.
> 
> That said, it is possible to see a regression this large, when all the
> CPUs are congesting on the page allocator lock. AFAIK Tariq also
> mentioned seeing 60% spend on the lock, which would confirm this theory.
> 

On that basis, I've posted a revert of the original patch which should
either go into 4.11 or 4.11-stable. Andrew, the revert should also
remove the "re-enable softirq use of per-cpu page" patch from mmotm.

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs