From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk1-f199.google.com (mail-qk1-f199.google.com [209.85.222.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D1126B0754 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:17:08 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-qk1-f199.google.com with SMTP id n68so7487239qkn.8 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2018 17:17:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id h25-v6sor10217922qta.49.2018.11.09.17.16.55 for (Google Transport Security); Fri, 09 Nov 2018 17:16:55 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 20:16:52 -0500 From: Pavel Tatashin Subject: Re: [mm PATCH v5 0/7] Deferred page init improvements Message-ID: <20181110011652.2wozbvfimcnhogfj@xakep.localdomain> References: <20181109211521.5ospn33pp552k2xv@xakep.localdomain> <18b6634b912af7b4ec01396a2b0f3b31737c9ea2.camel@linux.intel.com> <20181110000006.tmcfnzynelaznn7u@xakep.localdomain> <0d8782742d016565870c578848138aaedf873a7c.camel@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0d8782742d016565870c578848138aaedf873a7c.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Alexander Duyck Cc: daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, davem@davemloft.net, pavel.tatashin@microsoft.com, mhocko@suse.com, mingo@kernel.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com, dave.jiang@intel.com, rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com, willy@infradead.org, vbabka@suse.cz, khalid.aziz@oracle.com, ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mgorman@techsingularity.net, yi.z.zhang@linux.intel.com On 18-11-09 16:46:02, Alexander Duyck wrote: > On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 19:00 -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > > On 18-11-09 15:14:35, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-11-09 at 16:15 -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote: > > > > On 18-11-05 13:19:25, Alexander Duyck wrote: > > > > > This patchset is essentially a refactor of the page initialization logic > > > > > that is meant to provide for better code reuse while providing a > > > > > significant improvement in deferred page initialization performance. > > > > > > > > > > In my testing on an x86_64 system with 384GB of RAM and 3TB of persistent > > > > > memory per node I have seen the following. In the case of regular memory > > > > > initialization the deferred init time was decreased from 3.75s to 1.06s on > > > > > average. For the persistent memory the initialization time dropped from > > > > > 24.17s to 19.12s on average. This amounts to a 253% improvement for the > > > > > deferred memory initialization performance, and a 26% improvement in the > > > > > persistent memory initialization performance. > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > Please try to run your persistent memory init experiment with Daniel's > > > > patches: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181105165558.11698-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com/ > > > > > > I've taken a quick look at it. It seems like a bit of a brute force way > > > to try and speed things up. I would be worried about it potentially > > > > There is a limit to max number of threads that ktasks start. The memory > > throughput is *much* higher than what one CPU can maxout in a node, so > > there is no reason to leave the other CPUs sit idle during boot when > > they can help to initialize. > > Right, but right now that limit can still be pretty big when it is > something like 25% of all the CPUs on a 288 CPU system. It is still OK. About 9 threads per node. That machine has 1T of memory, which means 8 nodes need to initialize 2G of memory each. With 46G/s throughout it should take 0.043s Which is 10 times higher than what Daniel sees with 0.325s, so there is still room to saturate the memory throughput. Now, if the multi-threadding efficiency is good, it should take 1.261s / 9 threads = 0.14s > > One issue is the way the code was ends up essentially blowing out the > cache over and over again. Doing things in two passes made it really > expensive as you took one cache miss to initialize it, and another to > free it. I think getting rid of that is one of the biggest gains with > my patch set. I am not arguing that your patches make sense, all I am saying that ktasks improve time order of magnitude better on machines with large amount of memory. Pasha