From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
nehagholkar@meta.com, abhishekd@meta.com, david@redhat.com,
nphamcs@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, kbusch@meta.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
donettom@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Promotion of Unmapped Page Cache Folios.
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:46:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0z2jiom.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z5EhcQERseKShtGY@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F> (Gregory Price's message of "Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:48:49 -0500")
Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 07:16:03PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Gregory,
>> > Test process:
>> > In each test, we do a linear read of a 128GB file into a buffer
>> > in a loop.
>>
>> IMHO, the linear reading isn't a very good test case for promotion. You
>> cannot test the hot-page selection algorithm. I think that it's better
>> to use something like normal accessing pattern. IIRC, it is available
>> in fio test suite.
>>
>
> Oh yes, I don't plan to drop RFC until I can get a real workload and
> probably fio running under this. This patch set is varying priority for
> me at the moment so the versions will take some time. My goal is to
> have something a bit more solid by LSF/MM, but not before.
No problem.
>> > 1) file allocated in DRAM with mechanisms off
>> > 2) file allocated in DRAM with balancing on but promotion off
>> > 3) file allocated in DRAM with balancing and promotion on
>> > (promotion check is negative because all pages are top tier)
>> > 4) file allocated in CXL with mechanisms off
>> > 5) file allocated in CXL with mechanisms on
>> >
>> > | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
>> > | DRAM Base | Promo On | TopTier Chk | CXL Base | Post-Promotion |
>> > | 7.5804 | 7.7586 | 7.9726 | 9.75 | 7.8941 |
>>
>> For 3, we can check whether the folio is in top-tier as the first step.
>> Will that introduce measurable overhead?
>>
>
> That is basically what 2 vs 3 is doing.
>
> Test 2 shows overhead of TPP on + pagecache promo off
> Test 3 shows overhead of TPP+Promo on, but all the memory is on top tier
>
> This shows the check as to whether the folio is in the top tier is
> actually somewhat expensive (~5% compared to baseline, ~2.7% compared to
> TPP-on Promo-off).
This is unexpected. Can we try to optimize it? For example, via using
a nodemask? node_is_toptier() is used in the mapped pages promotion
too (1 vs. 2 above). I guess that the optimization can reduce the
overhead there with measurable difference too.
> The goal of this linear, simple test is to isolate test behavior from
> the overhead - that makes it easy to test each individual variable (TPP,
> promo, top tier, etc) and see relative overheads.
>
> This basically gives us a reasonable floor/ceiling of expected overhead.
> If we see something wildly different than this during something like FIO
> or a real workload, then we'll know we missed something.
>
>> >
>> > This could be further limited by limiting the promotion rate via the
>> > existing knob, or by implementing a new knob detached from the existing
>> > promotion rate. There are merits to both approach.
>>
>> Have you tested with the existing knob? Whether does it help?
>>
>
> Not yet, this fell off my priority list before I could do additional
> testing. I will add that to my backlog.
No problem.
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-23 3:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-07 0:03 Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] migrate: Allow migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare() to accept a NULL VMA Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] memory: move conditionally defined enums use inside ifdef tags Gregory Price
2025-01-21 4:33 ` Bharata B Rao
2025-01-22 18:01 ` Gregory Price
2025-01-23 3:07 ` Bharata B Rao
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] memory: allow non-fault migration in numa_migrate_check path Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] vmstat: add page-cache numa hints Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] migrate: implement migrate_misplaced_folio_batch Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] migrate,sysfs: add pagecache promotion Gregory Price
2025-01-22 11:16 ` [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Promotion of Unmapped Page Cache Folios Huang, Ying
2025-01-22 16:48 ` Gregory Price
2025-01-23 3:46 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2025-01-23 14:55 ` Gregory Price
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=87y0z2jiom.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA \
--to=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=abhishekd@meta.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=donettom@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nehagholkar@meta.com \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.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