netdev - Re: Page allocator bottleneck

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: <082e7901-7842-e9d9-221d-45322da0fcff@mellanox.com>
Date:   Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:33:20 +0300
From:   Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
To:     Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...com>,
        Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
        Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@...lanox.com>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck



On 18/09/2017 10:44 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:34:47PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>>>
>>> It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter.
>>> But maybe we should also think of changing the default fraction guaranteed
>>> to the PCP, so that unaware admins of networking servers would also benefit.
>>
>> I collected some performance data with will-it-scale/page_fault1 process
>> mode on different machines with different pcp->batch sizes, starting
>> from the default 31(calculated by zone_batchsize(), 31 is the standard
>> value for any zone that has more than 1/2MiB memory), then incremented
>> by 31 upwards till 527. PCP's upper limit is 6*batch.
>>
>> An image is plotted and attached: batch_full.png(full here means the
>> number of process started equals to CPU number).
> 
> To be clear: X-axis is the value of batch size(31, 62, 93, ..., 527),
> Y-axis is the value of per_process_ops, generated by will-it-scale,
> higher is better.
> 
>>
>>  From the image:
>> - For EX machines, they all see throughput increase with increased batch
>>    size and peaked at around batch_size=310, then fall;
>> - For EP machines, Haswell-EP and Broadwell-EP also see throughput
>>    increase with increased batch size and peaked at batch_size=279, then
>>    fall, batch_size=310 also delivers pretty good result. Skylake-EP is
>>    quite different in that it doesn't see any obvious throughput increase
>>    after batch_size=93, though the trend is still increasing, but in a very
>>    small way and finally peaked at batch_size=403, then fall.
>>    Ivybridge EP behaves much like desktop ones.
>> - For Desktop machines, they do not see any obvious changes with
>>    increased batch_size.
>>
>> So the default batch size(31) doesn't deliver good enough result, we
>> probbaly should change the default value.

Thanks Aaron for sharing your experiment results.
That's a good analysis of the effect of the batch value.
I agree with your conclusion.

 From networking perspective, we should reconsider the defaults to be 
able to reach the increasing NICs linerates.
Not only for pcp->batch, but also for pcp->high.

Regards,
Tariq