Hi Mel, On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 04:44:26PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:51:43PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 02:34:50PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: [snip] > > > I doubt hackbench is doing any flushes and the 1.2% is noise. > > > > Here are the proc-vmstat.nr_tlb_remote_flush numbers for hackbench: > > > > 513 ~ 3% +4.3e+16% 2.192e+17 ~85% lkp-nex05/micro/hackbench/800%-process-pipe > > 603 ~ 3% +7.7e+16% 4.669e+17 ~13% lkp-nex05/micro/hackbench/800%-process-socket > > 6124 ~17% +5.7e+15% 3.474e+17 ~26% lkp-nex05/micro/hackbench/800%-threads-pipe > > 7565 ~49% +5.5e+15% 4.128e+17 ~68% lkp-nex05/micro/hackbench/800%-threads-socket > > 21252 ~ 6% +1.3e+15% 2.728e+17 ~39% lkp-snb01/micro/hackbench/1600%-threads-pipe > > 24516 ~16% +8.3e+14% 2.034e+17 ~53% lkp-snb01/micro/hackbench/1600%-threads-socket > > > > This is a surprise. The differences I can understand because of changes > in accounting but not the flushes themselves. The only flushes I would > expect are when the process exits and the regions are torn down. > > The exception would be if automatic NUMA balancing was enabled and this > was a NUMA machine. In that case, NUMA hinting faults could be migrating > memory and triggering flushes. You are right, the kconfig (attached) does have CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING=y and lkp-nex05 is a 4-socket NHM-EX machine; lkp-snb01 is a 2-socket SNB machine. > Could you do something like > > # perf probe native_flush_tlb_others > # cd /sys/kernel/debug/tracing > # echo sym-offset > trace_options > # echo sym-addr > trace_options > # echo stacktrace > trace_options > # echo 1 > events/probe/native_flush_tlb_others/enable > # cat trace_pipe > /tmp/log > > and get a breakdown of what the source of these remote flushes are > please? Sure. Attached is the log file. > > This time, the ebizzy params are refreshed and the test case is > > exercised in all our test machines. The results that have changed are: > > > > v3.13-rc3 eabb1f89905a0c809d13 > > --------------- ------------------------- > > 873 ~ 0% +0.7% 879 ~ 0% lkp-a03/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 873 ~ 0% +0.7% 879 ~ 0% lkp-a04/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 873 ~ 0% +0.8% 880 ~ 0% lkp-a06/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 49242 ~ 0% -1.2% 48650 ~ 0% lkp-ib03/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 26176 ~ 0% -1.6% 25760 ~ 0% lkp-sbx04/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 2738 ~ 0% +0.2% 2744 ~ 0% lkp-t410/micro/ebizzy/200%-100-10 > > 80776 -1.2% 79793 TOTAL ebizzy.throughput > > > > No change on lkp-ib03 which I would have expected some difference. Thing > is, for ebizzy to notice the number of TLB entries matter. On both > machines I tested, the last level TLB had 512 entries. How many entries > are on the last level TLB on lkp-ib03? [ 0.116154] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 512, 2MB 0, 4MB 0 [ 0.116154] Last level dTLB entries: 4KB 512, 2MB 0, 4MB 0 > > > I do see a few major regressions like this > > > > > > > 324497 ~ 0% -100.0% 0 ~ 0% brickland2/micro/vm-scalability/16G-truncate > > > > > > but I have no idea what the test is doing and whether something happened > > > that the test broke that time or if it's something to be really > > > concerned about. > > > > This test case simply creates sparse files, populate them with zeros, > > then delete them in parallel. Here $mem is physical memory size 128G, > > $nr_cpu is 120. > > > > for i in `seq $nr_cpu` > > do > > create_sparse_file $SPARSE_FILE-$i $((mem / nr_cpu)) > > cp $SPARSE_FILE-$i /dev/null > > done > > > > for i in `seq $nr_cpu` > > do > > rm $SPARSE_FILE-$i & > > done > > > > In itself, that does not explain why the result was 0 with the series > applied. The 3.13-rc3 result was "324497". 324497 what? It's the proc-vmstat.nr_tlb_local_flush_one number, which is showed in the end of every "TOTAL" line: v3.13-rc3 eabb1f89905a0c809d13 --------------- ------------------------- ... 324497 ~ 0% -100.0% 0 ~ 0% brickland2/micro/vm-scalability/16G-truncate ... 99986527 +3e+14% 2.988e+20 TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_tlb_local_flush_one ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ btw, I've got the full test results for hackbench. Attached are the new comparison results. There are small ups and downs, overall no big regressions. Thanks, Fengguang