[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YwLqW8Bc2CWCJsAE@feng-clx>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:30:51 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
CC: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Michal Koutn?? <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
"Sang, Oliver" <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"lkp@...ts.01.org" <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64
On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 08:17:37AM +0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> For several years, MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH was kept at 32 but with bigger
> machines and the network intensive workloads requiring througput in
> Gbps, 32 is too small and makes the memcg charging path a bottleneck.
> For now, increase it to 64 for easy acceptance to 6.0. We will need to
> revisit this in future for ever increasing demand of higher performance.
>
> Please note that the memcg charge path drain the per-cpu memcg charge
> stock, so there should not be any oom behavior change.
>
> To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we
> ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top
> level having min and low setup appropriately. More specifically
> memory.min equal to size of netperf binary and memory.low double of
> that.
>
> $ netserver -6
> # 36 instances of netperf with following params
> $ netperf -6 -H ::1 -l 60 -t TCP_SENDFILE -- -m 10K
>
> Results (average throughput of netperf):
> Without (6.0-rc1) 10482.7 Mbps
> With patch 17064.7 Mbps (62.7% improvement)
>
> With the patch, the throughput improved by 62.7%.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
This batch number has long been a pain point :) thanks for the work!
Reviewed-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
- Feng
> ---
> include/linux/memcontrol.h | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> index 4d31ce55b1c0..70ae91188e16 100644
> --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> @@ -354,10 +354,11 @@ struct mem_cgroup {
> };
>
> /*
> - * size of first charge trial. "32" comes from vmscan.c's magic value.
> - * TODO: maybe necessary to use big numbers in big irons.
> + * size of first charge trial.
> + * TODO: maybe necessary to use big numbers in big irons or dynamic based of the
> + * workload.
> */
> -#define MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH 32U
> +#define MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH 64U
>
> extern struct mem_cgroup *root_mem_cgroup;
>
> --
> 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists