From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:27:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090204152709.GA4799@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200902041748.41801.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 05:48:40PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 22:22:26 Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:36:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> > > But it will be interesting to try looking at some of the tests where
> > > SLQB has larger regressions, so that might give me something to go on
> > > if I can lay my hands on speccpu2006...
> >
> > I can generate profile runs although it'll take 3 days to gather it all
> > together unless I target specific tests (the worst ones to start with
> > obviously). The suite has a handy feature called monitor hooks that allows
> > a pre and post script to run for each test which I use it to start/stop
> > oprofile and gather one report per benchmark. I didn't use it for this run
> > as profiling affects the outcome (7-9% overhead).
> >
> > I do have detailed profile data available for sysbench, both per thread run
> > and the entire run but with the instruction-level included, it's a lot of
> > data to upload. If you still want it, I'll start it going and it'll get up
> > there eventually.
>
> It couldn't hurt, but it's usually tricky to read anything out of these from
> CPU cycle profiles. Especially if they are due to cache or tlb effects (which
> tend to just get spread out all over the profile).
>
Indeed. To date, I've used them for comparing relative counts of things like
TLB and cache misses on the basis "relatively more misses running test X is
bad" or working out things like tlb-misses-per-instructions but it's a bit
vague. We might notice if one of the allocators is being particularly cache
unfriendly due to a spike in cache misses.
> slabinfo (for SLUB) and slqbinfo (for SLQB) activity data could be interesting
> (invoke with -AD).
>
Ok, I butchered Ingo's proc monitoring script to gather /proc/slabinfo,
slabinfo -AD and slqbinfo -AD before and after each speccpu subtest. The tests
with profiling just started but it will take a few days to complete and thats
assuming I made no mistakes in the automation. I'll be at FOSDEM from Friday
till Monday so may not be able to collect the results until Monday.
>
> > > I'd be interested to see how slub performs if booted with
> > > slub_min_objects=1 (which should give similar order pages to SLAB and
> > > SLQB).
> >
> > I'll do this before profiling as only one run is required and should
> > only take a day.
> >
> > Making spec actually build is tricky so I've included a sample config for
> > x86-64 below that uses gcc and the monitor hooks in case someone else is in
> > the position to repeat the results.
>
> Thanks. I don't know if we have a copy of spec 2006 I can use, but I'll ask
> around.
>
In the meantime, here are the results I have with slub configured to
use small orders.
X86-64 Test machine
CPU AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core
CPU Frequency 1.3GHz
Physical CPUs 1 (4 cores)
L1 Cache 64K Data, 64K Instruction per core
L2 Cache 512K Unified per core
L3 Cache 2048K Unified Shared per chip
Main Memory 8 GB
Mainboard Gigabyte GA-MA78GM-S2H
Machine Model Custom built from parts
SPEC CPU 2006
-------------
Integer tests
SPEC test slab slub slub-minorder slqb
400.perlbench 1.0000 1.0016 0.9921 1.0064
401.bzip2 1.0000 0.9804 0.9858 1.0011
403.gcc 1.0000 1.0023 0.9977 0.9965
429.mcf 1.0000 1.0022 0.9847 0.9963
445.gobmk 1.0000 0.9944 0.9958 0.9986
456.hmmer 1.0000 0.9792 0.9874 0.9701
458.sjeng 1.0000 0.9989 1.0144 1.0133
462.libquantum 1.0000 0.9905 0.9943 0.9981
464.h264ref 1.0000 0.9877 0.9926 1.0058
471.omnetpp 1.0000 0.9893 1.0896 1.0993
473.astar 1.0000 0.9542 0.9930 0.9596
483.xalancbmk 1.0000 0.9547 0.9928 0.9982
---------------
specint geomean 1.0000 0.9862 1.0013 1.0031
Floating Point Tests
SPEC test slab slub slub-minorder slqb
410.bwaves 1.0000 0.9939 1.0000 1.0005
416.gamess 1.0000 1.0040 1.0032 0.9984
433.milc 1.0000 0.9865 0.9986 0.9865
434.zeusmp 1.0000 0.9810 0.9980 0.9879
435.gromacs 1.0000 0.9854 1.0100 1.0125
436.cactusADM 1.0000 1.0467 0.9904 1.0294
437.leslie3d 1.0000 0.9846 0.9970 0.9963
444.namd 1.0000 1.0000 0.9986 1.0000
447.dealII 1.0000 0.9913 0.9957 0.9957
450.soplex 1.0000 0.9940 0.9955 1.0015
453.povray 1.0000 0.9904 1.0097 1.0197
454.calculix 1.0000 0.9937 0.9975 1.0000
459.GemsFDTD 1.0000 1.0061 0.9902 1.0000
465.tonto 1.0000 0.9979 1.0000 0.9989
470.lbm 1.0000 1.0099 0.9924 1.0212
481.wrf 1.0000 1.0000 1.0045 1.0045
482.sphinx3 1.0000 1.0047 1.0000 1.0068
---------------
specfp geomean 1.0000 0.9981 0.9989 1.0035
Sysbench-Postgres
-----------------
Client slab slub-default slub-minorder slqb
1 1.0000 0.9484 0.9699 0.9804
2 1.0000 1.0069 1.0036 0.9994
3 1.0000 1.0064 1.0080 0.9994
4 1.0000 0.9900 1.0049 0.9904
5 1.0000 1.0023 1.0144 0.9869
6 1.0000 1.0139 1.0215 1.0069
7 1.0000 0.9973 0.9966 0.9991
8 1.0000 1.0206 1.0223 1.0197
9 1.0000 0.9884 1.0167 0.9817
10 1.0000 0.9980 0.9842 1.0135
11 1.0000 0.9959 1.0036 1.0164
12 1.0000 0.9978 1.0032 0.9953
13 1.0000 1.0024 1.0022 0.9942
14 1.0000 0.9975 1.0064 0.9808
15 1.0000 0.9914 0.9949 0.9933
16 1.0000 0.9767 0.9692 0.9726
Geo. mean 1.0000 0.9957 1.0012 0.9955
PPC64 Test Machine
CPU PPC970MP, altivec supported
CPU Frequency 2.5GHz
Physical CPUs 2 x dual core (4 cores in all)
L1 Cache 32K Data, 64K Instruction per core
L2 Cache 1024K Unified per core
L3 Cache N/a
Main Memory 10GB
Mainboard Specific to the machine model
SPEC CPU 2006
-------------
Integer tests
SPEC test slab slub slub-minorder slqb
400.perlbench 1.0000 1.0497 1.0515 1.0497
401.bzip2 1.0000 1.0496 1.0496 1.0489
403.gcc 1.0000 1.0509 1.0509 1.0509
429.mcf 1.0000 1.0554 1.0549 1.0549
445.gobmk 1.0000 1.0535 1.0545 1.0556
456.hmmer 1.0000 1.0651 1.0636 1.0566
458.sjeng 1.0000 1.0612 1.0612 1.0564
462.libquantum 1.0000 1.0389 1.0403 1.0396
464.h264ref 1.0000 1.0517 1.0496 1.0503
471.omnetpp 1.0000 1.0555 1.0574 1.0574
473.astar 1.0000 1.0508 1.0514 1.0521
483.xalancbmk 1.0000 1.0594 1.0584 1.0584
---------------
specint geomean 1.0000 1.0534 1.0536 1.0525
Floating Point Tests
SPEC test slab slub slub-minorder slqb
410.bwaves 1.0000 1.0381 1.0381 1.0367
416.gamess 1.0000 1.0550 1.0539 1.0550
433.milc 1.0000 1.0464 1.0457 1.0450
434.zeusmp 1.0000 1.0510 1.0482 1.0528
435.gromacs 1.0000 1.0461 1.0437 1.0445
436.cactusADM 1.0000 1.0457 1.0463 1.0450
437.leslie3d 1.0000 1.0437 1.0437 1.0428
444.namd 1.0000 1.0482 1.0482 1.0496
447.dealII 1.0000 1.0505 1.0495 1.0505
450.soplex 1.0000 1.0522 1.0511 1.0499
453.povray 1.0000 1.0513 1.0534 1.0534
454.calculix 1.0000 1.0374 1.0370 1.0357
459.GemsFDTD 1.0000 1.0465 1.0465 1.0465
465.tonto 1.0000 1.0488 1.0494 1.0456
470.lbm 1.0000 1.0438 1.0438 1.0452
481.wrf 1.0000 1.0423 1.0423 1.0429
482.sphinx3 1.0000 1.0464 1.0479 1.0479
---------------
specfp geomean 1.0000 1.0467 1.0464 1.0464
Sysbench-Postgres
-----------------
Client slab slub-default slub-minorder slqb
1 1.0000 1.0153 1.0179 1.0051
2 1.0000 1.0273 1.0181 1.0269
3 1.0000 1.0299 1.0195 1.0234
4 1.0000 1.0159 1.0130 1.0146
5 1.0000 1.0232 1.0192 1.0264
6 1.0000 1.0238 1.0142 1.0088
7 1.0000 1.0240 1.0063 1.0076
8 1.0000 1.0134 0.9842 1.0024
9 1.0000 1.0154 1.0152 1.0077
10 1.0000 1.0126 1.0018 1.0009
11 1.0000 1.0100 0.9971 0.9933
12 1.0000 1.0112 0.9985 0.9993
13 1.0000 1.0131 1.0060 1.0035
14 1.0000 1.0237 1.0074 1.0071
15 1.0000 1.0098 0.9997 0.9997
16 1.0000 1.0110 0.9899 0.9994
Geo. mean 1.0000 1.0175 1.0067 1.0078
The order SLUB uses does not make much of a difference to SPEC CPU on
either test machine or sysbench on x86-64. Howeer, on the ppc64 machine, the
performance advantage SLUB has over SLAB appears to be eliminated if high-order
pages are not used. I think I might run SLUB again incase the higher average
performance was a co-incidence due to lucky cache layout. Otherwise, Christoph
can probably put together a plausible theory on this result faster than I can.
On the TLB front, it is perfectly possible that the workloads on x86-64 are
not allocator or memory intensive enough to take advantage of fewer calls to
the page allocator or potentially reduced TLB pressure. As the kernel portion
of the address space already uses huge pages slab objects may have to occupy
a very large percentage of memory before TLB pressure became an issue. The L1
TLBs on both test machines are fully associative making testing reduced TLB
pressure practically impossible. For bonus points, 1G pages are being used on
the x86-64 so I have nowhere near enough memory to put that under TLB pressure.
Measuring reduced metadata overhead is more plausible.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-04 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-23 15:46 Nick Piggin
2009-01-24 2:38 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-01-26 8:48 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-01-26 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-26 9:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-26 17:22 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-01-27 9:07 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-27 20:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-03 2:04 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-03 10:12 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-03 10:36 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-03 11:22 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-03 11:26 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-04 6:48 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-04 15:27 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2009-02-05 3:59 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-05 13:49 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-16 18:42 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-16 19:17 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-16 19:41 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-16 19:43 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-17 1:06 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-02-17 16:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-17 17:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-17 17:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-17 17:24 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-17 18:11 ` Johannes Weiner
2009-02-17 19:43 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-17 20:04 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-18 0:48 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-18 8:09 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-19 0:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-19 9:16 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-19 12:51 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-19 13:15 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-19 13:49 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2009-02-19 14:19 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-18 1:05 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-02-18 7:48 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-18 8:43 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-02-18 9:01 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-18 9:19 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2009-02-19 8:40 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-16 19:25 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-16 19:44 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-16 19:42 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-03 11:28 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-03 11:50 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-03 12:01 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-03 12:07 ` Nick Piggin
2009-02-03 12:26 ` Mel Gorman
2009-02-04 15:49 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-04 15:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-02-03 18:58 ` Pekka Enberg
2009-02-04 16:06 ` Christoph Lameter
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=20090204152709.GA4799@csn.ul.ie \
--to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=ming.m.lin@intel.com \
--cc=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.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