linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
To: rulinhuang <rulin.huang@intel.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, urezki@gmail.com,
	colin.king@intel.com, hch@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	lstoakes@gmail.com, tianyou.li@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com,
	wangyang.guo@intel.com, zhiguo.zhou@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] mm/vmalloc: lock contention optimization under multi-threading
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 13:52:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZddDdxcdD5hNpyUX@pc636> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240222121045.216556-1-rulin.huang@intel.com>

Hello, Rulinhuang!

> Hi Uladzislau and Andrew, we have rebased it(Patch v4) on branch 
> mm-unstable and remeasured it. Could you kindly help confirm if 
> this is the right base to work on?
> Compared to the previous result at kernel v6.7 with a 5% performance 
> gain on intel icelake(160 vcpu), we only had a 0.6% with this commit 
> base. But we think our modification still has some significance. On 
> the one hand, this does reduce a critical section. On the other hand, 
> we have a 4% performance gain on intel sapphire rapids(224 vcpu), 
> which suggests more performance improvement would likely be achieved 
> when the core count of processors increases to hundreds or 
> even thousands.
> Thank you again for your comments.
>
According to the patch that was a correct rebase. Right a small delta
on your 160 CPUs is because of removing a contention. As for bigger
systems it is bigger impact, like you point here on your 224 vcpu
results where you see %4 perf improvement.

So we should fix it. But the way how it is fixed is not optimal from
my point of view, because the patch that is in question spreads the
internals from alloc_vmap_area(), like inserting busy area, across
many parts now.

--
Uladzislau Rezki


  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-22 12:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-07  3:30 [PATCH] " rulinhuang
2024-02-07  9:24 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-02-09 11:51   ` rulinhuang
2024-02-20  9:05     ` [PATCH v2] " rulinhuang
2024-02-20 19:54       ` Andrew Morton
2024-02-21  3:34         ` rulinhuang
2024-02-20  9:12   ` [PATCH] " rulinhuang
2024-02-21  8:38     ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-02-21  3:29 ` [PATCH v3] " rulinhuang
2024-02-21  8:36   ` Uladzislau Rezki
2024-02-22 12:09     ` rulinhuang
2024-02-22 12:10     ` rulinhuang
2024-02-22 12:52       ` Uladzislau Rezki [this message]
2024-02-22 15:36         ` Baoquan He
2024-02-23 13:09         ` rulinhuang
2024-02-22 12:05 ` [PATCH v4] " rulinhuang
2024-02-23 13:03 ` [PATCH v5] " rulinhuang
2024-02-23 14:03   ` Baoquan He

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=ZddDdxcdD5hNpyUX@pc636 \
    --to=urezki@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=colin.king@intel.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=lstoakes@gmail.com \
    --cc=rulin.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=tianyou.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=wangyang.guo@intel.com \
    --cc=zhiguo.zhou@intel.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