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
next prev parent 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