[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod6+Y1yvp8evMLTeEwKnQyoXJmzjO7xLN9w=EPcOUH6BHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 21:41:42 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
Cgroups <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: page_counter: rearrange struct page_counter fields
On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 5:33 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:05:05 +0000 Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> > With memcg v2 enabled, memcg->memory.usage is a very hot member for
> > the workloads doing memcg charging on multiple CPUs concurrently.
> > Particularly the network intensive workloads. In addition, there is a
> > false cache sharing between memory.usage and memory.high on the charge
> > path. This patch moves the usage into a separate cacheline and move all
> > the read most fields into separate cacheline.
> >
> > To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we
> > ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy.
> >
> > $ 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 12413.7 Mbps (18.4% improvement)
> >
> > With the patch, the throughput improved by 18.4%.
> >
> > One side-effect of this patch is the increase in the size of struct
> > mem_cgroup. For example with this patch on 64 bit build, the size of
> > struct mem_cgroup increased from 4032 bytes to 4416 bytes. However for
> > the performance improvement, this additional size is worth it. In
> > addition there are opportunities to reduce the size of struct
> > mem_cgroup like deprecation of kmem and tcpmem page counters and
> > better packing.
>
> Did you evaluate the effects of using a per-cpu counter of some form?
Do you mean per-cpu counter for usage or something else? The usage
needs to be compared against the limits and accumulating per-cpu is
costly particularly on larger machines, so, no easy way to make usage
a per-cpu counter. Or maybe I misunderstood you and you meant
something else.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists