Re: [RFC] NUMA balancing: reduce TLB flush via delaying mapping on hint page fault

[Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2416 bytes --]



> On Apr 1, 2021, at 1:38 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 09:36:04AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 31, 2021, at 6:16 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 07:20:09PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>>> Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 02:26:51PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>>>>>> For NUMA balancing, in hint page fault handler, the faulting page will
>>>>>> be migrated to the accessing node if necessary.  During the migration,
>>>>>> TLB will be shot down on all CPUs that the process has run on
>>>>>> recently.  Because in the hint page fault handler, the PTE will be
>>>>>> made accessible before the migration is tried.  The overhead of TLB
>>>>>> shooting down is high, so it's better to be avoided if possible.  In
>>>>>> fact, if we delay mapping the page in PTE until migration, that can be
>>>>>> avoided.  This is what this patch doing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why would the overhead be high? It was previously inaccessibly so it's
>>>>> only parallel accesses making forward progress that trigger the need
>>>>> for a flush.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry, I don't understand this.  Although the page is inaccessible, the
>>>> threads may access other pages, so TLB flushing is still necessary.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> You assert the overhead of TLB shootdown is high and yes, it can be
>>> very high but you also said "the benchmark score has no visible changes"
>>> indicating the TLB shootdown cost is not a major problem for the workload.
>>> It does not mean we should ignore it though.
>> 
>> If you are looking for a benchmark that is negatively affected by NUMA
>> balancing, then IIRC Parsec???s dedup is such a workload. [1]
>> 
> 
> Few questions;
> 
> Is Parsec imparied due to NUMA balancing in general or due to TLB
> shootdowns specifically?

TLB shootdowns specifically.

> 
> Are you using "gcc-pthreads" for parallelisation and the "native" size
> for Parsec?

native as it is the biggest workload, so it is most apparent with
native. I don’t remember that I played with the threading model
parameters.

> 
> Is there any specific thread count that matters either in
> absolute terms or as a precentage of online CPUs?

IIRC, when thread count matches the CPU numbers (or perhaps
slightly lower), the impact is the greatest.


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]