From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4129FC433EF for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 8A73E6B0073; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 82DBF6B0074; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:13:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 6CEC26B0075; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:13:26 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0117.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.117]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CCA26B0073 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin06.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DCAD8249980 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:16 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78876675192.06.0A73CB9 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf22.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 785041908 for ; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FB1F1FD3C; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1638540794; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YuUZJgfai8aZBSYulx5eyhjnGiU4iwqWBDGtGmY3Ows=; b=Vx5k4E6Dt3aM8OuP9h6yqyuBbGglcfKrIpf+8dpkEYQCKNdIUSLqI2yEHS69Uz5fPy9LOa R8nKFuAyeYuadcNqM3bkKRjPWXwR1A/5WRBqRdL/Qm28D4DlB4CjijQxJrnwZJu6e/I8kP rJLajlqbjRpGOr3re1nbj0qbDpwxZSo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1638540794; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YuUZJgfai8aZBSYulx5eyhjnGiU4iwqWBDGtGmY3Ows=; b=UXGFi8yNmmX1K5YTMXm8Wn1utZgUQf5L2Yrt5lo/ylLk0EIqLWrkvG3k1NrvJ4KOdVdxCB 859Fu9S0veXzrECg== Received: from suse.de (unknown [10.163.43.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AFCDA3B85; Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2021 14:13:06 +0000 From: Mel Gorman To: Nicolas Saenz Julienne Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, frederic@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, peterz@infradead.org, mtosatti@redhat.com, nilal@redhat.com, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, vbabka@suse.cz, cl@linux.com, ppandit@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/page_alloc: Remotely drain per-cpu lists Message-ID: <20211203141306.GG3301@suse.de> References: <20211103170512.2745765-1-nsaenzju@redhat.com> <20211103170512.2745765-4-nsaenzju@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20211103170512.2745765-4-nsaenzju@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 785041908 Authentication-Results: imf22.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=Vx5k4E6D; dkim=pass header.d=suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=UXGFi8yN; spf=pass (imf22.hostedemail.com: domain of mgorman@suse.de designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mgorman@suse.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=suse.de X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Stat-Signature: drowu1wrax516tejhj5y1mn7xu3qd6zs X-HE-Tag: 1638540797-874797 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Nov 03, 2021 at 06:05:12PM +0100, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote: > Some setups, notably NOHZ_FULL CPUs, are too busy to handle the per-cpu > drain work queued by __drain_all_pages(). So introduce new a mechanism > to remotely drain the per-cpu lists. It is made possible by remotely > locking 'struct per_cpu_pages' new per-cpu spinlocks. A benefit of this > new scheme is that drain operations are now migration safe. > > There was no observed performance degradation vs. the previous scheme. > Both netperf and hackbench were run in parallel to triggering the > __drain_all_pages(NULL, true) code path around ~100 times per second. > The new scheme performs a bit better (~5%), although the important point > here is there are no performance regressions vs. the previous mechanism. > Per-cpu lists draining happens only in slow paths. > netperf and hackbench are not great indicators of page allocator performance as IIRC they are more slab-intensive than page allocator intensive. I ran the series through a few benchmarks and can confirm that there was negligible difference to netperf and hackbench. However, on Page Fault Test (pft in mmtests), it is noticable. On a 2-socket cascadelake machine I get pft timings 5.16.0-rc1 5.16.0-rc1 vanilla mm-remotedrain-v2r1 Amean system-1 27.48 ( 0.00%) 27.85 * -1.35%* Amean system-4 28.65 ( 0.00%) 30.84 * -7.65%* Amean system-7 28.70 ( 0.00%) 32.43 * -13.00%* Amean system-12 30.33 ( 0.00%) 34.21 * -12.80%* Amean system-21 37.14 ( 0.00%) 41.51 * -11.76%* Amean system-30 36.79 ( 0.00%) 46.15 * -25.43%* Amean system-48 58.95 ( 0.00%) 65.28 * -10.73%* Amean system-79 111.61 ( 0.00%) 114.78 * -2.84%* Amean system-80 113.59 ( 0.00%) 116.73 * -2.77%* Amean elapsed-1 32.83 ( 0.00%) 33.12 * -0.88%* Amean elapsed-4 8.60 ( 0.00%) 9.17 * -6.66%* Amean elapsed-7 4.97 ( 0.00%) 5.53 * -11.30%* Amean elapsed-12 3.08 ( 0.00%) 3.43 * -11.41%* Amean elapsed-21 2.19 ( 0.00%) 2.41 * -10.06%* Amean elapsed-30 1.73 ( 0.00%) 2.04 * -17.87%* Amean elapsed-48 1.73 ( 0.00%) 2.03 * -17.77%* Amean elapsed-79 1.61 ( 0.00%) 1.64 * -1.90%* Amean elapsed-80 1.60 ( 0.00%) 1.64 * -2.50%* It's not specific to cascade lake, I see varying size regressions on different Intel and AMD chips, some better and worse than this result. The smallest regression was on a single CPU skylake machine with a 2-6% hit. Worst was Zen1 with a 3-107% hit. I didn't profile it to establish why but in all cases the system CPU usage was much higher. It *might* be because the spinlock in per_cpu_pages crosses a new cache line and it might be cold although the penalty seems a bit high for that to be the only factor. Code-wise, the patches look fine but the apparent penalty for PFT is too severe. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs