From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:29:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140910162936.GI25219@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140905092537.GC26243@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Fri 05-09-14 11:25:37, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 04-09-14 13:27:26, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 07:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > Ouch. free_pages_and_swap_cache completely kills the uncharge batching
> > > because it reduces it to PAGEVEC_SIZE batches.
> > >
> > > I think we really do not need PAGEVEC_SIZE batching anymore. We are
> > > already batching on tlb_gather layer. That one is limited so I think
> > > the below should be safe but I have to think about this some more. There
> > > is a risk of prolonged lru_lock wait times but the number of pages is
> > > limited to 10k and the heavy work is done outside of the lock. If this
> > > is really a problem then we can tear LRU part and the actual
> > > freeing/uncharging into a separate functions in this path.
> > >
> > > Could you test with this half baked patch, please? I didn't get to test
> > > it myself unfortunately.
> >
> > 3.16 settled out at about 11.5M faults/sec before the regression. This
> > patch gets it back up to about 10.5M, which is good.
>
> Dave, would you be willing to test the following patch as well? I do not
> have a huge machine at hand right now. It would be great if you could
I was playing with 48CPU with 32G of RAM machine but the res_counter
lock didn't show up in the traces much (this was with 96 processes doing
mmap (256M private file, faul, unmap in parallel):
|--0.75%-- __res_counter_charge
| res_counter_charge
| try_charge
| mem_cgroup_try_charge
| |
| |--81.56%-- do_cow_fault
| | handle_mm_fault
| | __do_page_fault
| | do_page_fault
| | page_fault
[...]
| |
| --18.44%-- __add_to_page_cache_locked
| add_to_page_cache_lru
| mpage_readpages
| ext4_readpages
| __do_page_cache_readahead
| ondemand_readahead
| page_cache_async_readahead
| filemap_fault
| __do_fault
| do_cow_fault
| handle_mm_fault
| __do_page_fault
| do_page_fault
| page_fault
Nothing really changed in that regards when I reduced mmap size to 128M
and run with 4*CPUs.
I do not have a bigger machine to play with unfortunately. I think the
patch makes sense on its own. I would really appreciate if you could
give it a try on your machine with !root memcg case to see how much it
helped. I would expect similar results to your previous testing without
the revert and Johannes' patch.
[...]
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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:[~2014-09-10 16:29 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 [this message]
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
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=20140910162936.GI25219@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--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