linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 18:18:14 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140902221814.GA18069@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54061505.8020500@sr71.net>

Hi Dave,

On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 12:05:41PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> I'm seeing a pretty large regression in 3.17-rc2 vs 3.16 coming from the
> memory cgroups code.  This is on a kernel with cgroups enabled at
> compile time, but not _used_ for anything.  See the green lines in the
> graph:
> 
> 	https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/regression-from-05b843012.png
> 
> The workload is a little parallel microbenchmark doing page faults:

Ouch.

> > https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/page_fault2.c
> 
> The hardware is an 8-socket Westmere box with 160 hardware threads.  For
> some reason, this does not affect the version of the microbenchmark
> which is doing completely anonymous page faults.
> 
> I bisected it down to this commit:
> 
> > commit 05b8430123359886ef6a4146fba384e30d771b3f
> > Author: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> > Date:   Wed Aug 6 16:05:59 2014 -0700
> > 
> >     mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter
> >     
> >     Due to an old optimization to keep expensive res_counter changes at a
> >     minimum, the root_mem_cgroup res_counter is never charged; there is no
> >     limit at that level anyway, and any statistics can be generated on
> >     demand by summing up the counters of all other cgroups.
> >     
> >     However, with per-cpu charge caches, res_counter operations do not even
> >     show up in profiles anymore, so this optimization is no longer
> >     necessary.
> >     
> >     Remove it to simplify the code.

Accounting new pages is buffered through per-cpu caches, but taking
them off the counters on free is not, so I'm guessing that above a
certain allocation rate the cost of locking and changing the counters
takes over.  Is there a chance you could profile this to see if locks
and res_counter-related operations show up?

I can't reproduce this complete breakdown on my smaller test gear, but
I do see an improvement with the following patch:

---

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-09-02 22:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-09-02 19:05 Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:18 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:57   ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 14:27     ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-04 20:27       ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 22:53         ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05  9:28           ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05  9:25         ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 14:47           ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-05 15:39             ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:29           ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:57             ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-10 17:05               ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 12:35         ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-08 15:47           ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-09 14:50             ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-09 18:23               ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 22:18 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-09-02 22:36   ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03  0:10     ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03  0:20       ` Linus Torvalds
2014-09-03  1:33         ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03  3:15           ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03  0:30       ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 15:08         ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-04 20:50           ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05  8:04           ` Michal Hocko

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=20140902221814.GA18069@cmpxchg.org \
    --to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave@sr71.net \
    --cc=hughd@google.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vdavydov@parallels.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