linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:33:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <082e7901-7842-e9d9-221d-45322da0fcff@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170918074404.GD4107@intel.com>



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

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-18 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-14 16:49 Tariq Toukan
2017-09-14 20:19 ` Andi Kleen
2017-09-17 15:43   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-09-15  7:28 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2017-09-17 16:16   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-09-18  7:34     ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-18  7:44       ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-18 15:33         ` Tariq Toukan [this message]
2017-09-19  7:23           ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-15 10:23 ` Mel Gorman
2017-09-18  9:16   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-02 17:21     ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-03 13:40       ` Mel Gorman
2017-11-08  5:42         ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-08  9:35           ` Mel Gorman
2017-11-09  3:51             ` Figo.zhang
2017-11-09  5:06             ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-09  5:21             ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-04-21  8:15       ` Aaron Lu
2018-04-22 16:43         ` Tariq Toukan
2018-04-23  8:54           ` Tariq Toukan
2018-04-23 13:10             ` Aaron Lu
2018-04-27  8:45               ` Aaron Lu
2018-05-02 13:38                 ` Tariq Toukan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=082e7901-7842-e9d9-221d-45322da0fcff@mellanox.com \
    --to=tariqt@mellanox.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eranbe@mellanox.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=saeedm@mellanox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox