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 94B83C43334 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 05:03:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id CD9D26B0071; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 01:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C89026B0073; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 01:03:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id B50A16B0074; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 01:03:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A331A6B0071 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 01:03:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin26.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B7B80B89 for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 05:03:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79651853190.26.DAB402D Received: from mga12.intel.com (mga12.intel.com [192.55.52.136]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723604000A for ; Tue, 5 Jul 2022 05:03:34 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656997414; x=1688533414; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=0sKczz/MzrkciaGHBhWNdrcBmOzdmGmWF8CNerI1VBk=; b=C/+DjW2K2fXWvBQxopqBox3MPBzEbDd40n3rJ4yiHSeO6vq/LbbKhx0Z lWcsJPFG2Jp7k3g3kCcdw1ppUxE6PM88YWOWAyqsQ4beU6n2HnAAIHgYb fObBHoZUDnknUlMuv2e4gJib4QA5eEY3ov1Id+r1Gg2nWrsIjBAqswhTC E0C3EsB4MhphWbC2prwBN1o6WKeEEDun6FpWMm/3jygiktfvGjwIGggRu mjrmzfHnMrv6lTdSQ5V0dmySgCv5GS+nKWoSduWfJYRL5OKSmSkil6JLh u2zM2BH2a2O9pUb1KFzylAH+3dE4CyNiLN8f+K04UHlpoMVUNGz/CHNAm w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10398"; a="263044889" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,245,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="263044889" Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Jul 2022 22:03:32 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,245,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="625312910" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.138]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 04 Jul 2022 22:03:26 -0700 Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2022 13:03:26 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Shakeel Butt , Eric Dumazet , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Muchun Song , Jakub Kicinski , Xin Long , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , kernel test robot , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , LKML , network dev , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, MPTCP Upstream , "linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" , lkp@lists.01.org, kbuild test robot , Huang Ying , Xing Zhengjun , Yin Fengwei , Ying Xu Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression Message-ID: <20220705050326.GF62281@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20220627023812.GA29314@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627123415.GA32052@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627144822.GA20878@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220628034926.GA69004@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220703104353.GB62281@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1656997415; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=hxWnL/0uR2pYa8sTTZoSDFiuam13HxktQ1gN/1/bmDR8Wmb5DBNFOatlEFELkE91bDW99L 0bjKWos0JJWrRk3ol/mnXgHh8Stq8mEKO5GiGotrRQ+g2SBvkrZoGBjay80RML5BKxlug5 bAfxNzjbTYWc9weD+H9FTCEekZpx7BQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="C/+DjW2K"; spf=none (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.136) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1656997415; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=CDTPtmhzSWX01oxbqJE7Ydh6ekNonMUAODgGnOlNmvc=; b=fhRb/Vz29Ph9UEPe9qy7dRC8xHHydw9m3eGofSgevkso9WTvMPi9PIb6jwm2aoWWgcXzEN GnaI9WeAbc/8ikXRL1Jui5soGhIBGreIxYeBazl+nY9hAUh88AvZ0xGl8lTbmlAO+3ljh7 J9KM3OH/p0D/HgOMVVadcm7zkp5JebA= X-Stat-Signature: 74z4zdpymrxh8f3w9jmif511hbhknfpn X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 723604000A Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b="C/+DjW2K"; spf=none (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.136) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-HE-Tag: 1656997414-255245 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 Sun, Jul 03, 2022 at 03:55:31PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Sun, Jul 03, 2022 at 06:43:53PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > > Hi Shakeel, > > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 08:47:29AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:49 PM Feng Tang wrote: > > > > I just tested it, it does perform better (the 4th is with your patch), > > > > some perf-profile data is also listed. > > > > > > > > 7c80b038d23e1f4c 4890b686f4088c90432149bd6de 332b589c49656a45881bca4ecc0 e719635902654380b23ffce908d > > > > ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- > > > > 15722 -69.5% 4792 -40.8% 9300 -27.9% 11341 netperf.Throughput_Mbps > > > > > > > > 0.00 +0.3 0.26 ± 5% +0.5 0.51 +1.3 1.27 ± 2%pp.self.__sk_mem_raise_allocated > > > > 0.00 +0.3 0.32 ± 15% +1.7 1.74 ± 2% +0.4 0.40 ± 2% pp.self.propagate_protected_usage > > > > 0.00 +0.8 0.82 ± 7% +0.9 0.90 +0.8 0.84 pp.self.__mod_memcg_state > > > > 0.00 +1.2 1.24 ± 4% +1.0 1.01 +1.4 1.44 pp.self.try_charge_memcg > > > > 0.00 +2.1 2.06 +2.1 2.13 +2.1 2.11 pp.self.page_counter_uncharge > > > > 0.00 +2.1 2.14 ± 4% +2.7 2.71 +2.6 2.60 ± 2% pp.self.page_counter_try_charge > > > > 1.12 ± 4% +3.1 4.24 +1.1 2.22 +1.4 2.51 pp.self.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > 0.28 ± 9% +3.8 4.06 ± 4% +0.2 0.48 +0.4 0.68 pp.self.sctp_eat_data > > > > 0.00 +8.2 8.23 +0.8 0.83 +1.3 1.26 pp.self.__sk_mem_reduce_allocated > > > > > > > > And the size of 'mem_cgroup' is increased from 4224 Bytes to 4608. > > > > > > Hi Feng, can you please try two more configurations? Take Eric's patch > > > of adding ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp in page_counter and for first > > > increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64 and for second increase it to 128. > > > Basically batch increases combined with Eric's patch. > > > > With increasing batch to 128, the regression could be reduced to -12.4%. > > If we're going to bump it, I wonder if we should scale it dynamically depending > on the size of the memory cgroup? I think it makes sense, or also make it a configurable parameter? From the test reports of 0Day, these charging/counting play critical role in performance (easy to see up to 60% performance effect). If user only wants memcg for isolating things or doesn't care charging/stats, these seem to be extra taxes. For bumping to 64 or 128, universal improvement is expected with the only concern of accuracy. Thanks, Feng > Thanks!