linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	"Muchun Song" <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
	"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
	"Eric Dumazet" <edumazet@google.com>,
	"Soheil Hassas Yeganeh" <soheil@google.com>,
	"Feng Tang" <feng.tang@intel.com>,
	"Oliver Sang" <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: page_counter: remove unneeded atomic ops for low/min
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:43:46 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YwcaIlJUtaYB7cKI@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220825000506.239406-2-shakeelb@google.com>

On Thu 25-08-22 00:05:04, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> For cgroups using low or min protections, the function
> propagate_protected_usage() was doing an atomic xchg() operation
> irrespectively. We can optimize out this atomic operation for one
> specific scenario where the workload is using the protection (i.e.
> min > 0) and the usage is above the protection (i.e. usage > min).
> 
> This scenario is actually very common where the users want a part of
> their workload to be protected against the external reclaim. Though this
> optimization does introduce a race when the usage is around the
> protection and concurrent charges and uncharged trip it over or under
> the protection. In such cases, we might see lower effective protection
> but the subsequent charge/uncharge will correct it.

Thanks this is much more useful

> To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we
> ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top
> level having min and low setup appropriately to see if this optimization
> is effective for the mentioned case.
> 
>  $ netserver -6
>  # 36 instances of netperf with following params
>  $ netperf -6 -H ::1 -l 60 -t TCP_SENDFILE -- -m 10K
> 
> Results (average throughput of netperf):
> Without (6.0-rc1)	10482.7 Mbps
> With patch		14542.5 Mbps (38.7% improvement)
> 
> With the patch, the throughput improved by 38.7%
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>
> Reviewed-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
> Acked-by: Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Thanks!

> ---
> Changes since v1:
> - Commit message update with more detail on which scenario is getting
>   optimized and possible race condition.
> 
>  mm/page_counter.c | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page_counter.c b/mm/page_counter.c
> index eb156ff5d603..47711aa28161 100644
> --- a/mm/page_counter.c
> +++ b/mm/page_counter.c
> @@ -17,24 +17,23 @@ static void propagate_protected_usage(struct page_counter *c,
>  				      unsigned long usage)
>  {
>  	unsigned long protected, old_protected;
> -	unsigned long low, min;
>  	long delta;
>  
>  	if (!c->parent)
>  		return;
>  
> -	min = READ_ONCE(c->min);
> -	if (min || atomic_long_read(&c->min_usage)) {
> -		protected = min(usage, min);
> +	protected = min(usage, READ_ONCE(c->min));
> +	old_protected = atomic_long_read(&c->min_usage);
> +	if (protected != old_protected) {
>  		old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->min_usage, protected);
>  		delta = protected - old_protected;
>  		if (delta)
>  			atomic_long_add(delta, &c->parent->children_min_usage);
>  	}
>  
> -	low = READ_ONCE(c->low);
> -	if (low || atomic_long_read(&c->low_usage)) {
> -		protected = min(usage, low);
> +	protected = min(usage, READ_ONCE(c->low));
> +	old_protected = atomic_long_read(&c->low_usage);
> +	if (protected != old_protected) {
>  		old_protected = atomic_long_xchg(&c->low_usage, protected);
>  		delta = protected - old_protected;
>  		if (delta)
> -- 
> 2.37.1.595.g718a3a8f04-goog

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs


  reply	other threads:[~2022-08-25  6:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-08-25  0:05 [PATCH v2 0/3] memcg: optimize charge codepath Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  0:05 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm: page_counter: remove unneeded atomic ops for low/min Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  6:43   ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2022-08-25  0:05 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: page_counter: rearrange struct page_counter fields Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  0:33   ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-25  4:41     ` Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  5:21       ` Andrew Morton
2022-08-25 15:24         ` Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  6:47   ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-25 15:25     ` Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  0:05 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64 Shakeel Butt
2022-08-25  6:49   ` Michal Hocko
2022-08-25  8:30   ` Muchun Song

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=YwcaIlJUtaYB7cKI@dhcp22.suse.cz \
    --to=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=edumazet@google.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=shakeelb@google.com \
    --cc=soheil@google.com \
    --cc=songmuchun@bytedance.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