From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f198.google.com (mail-qk0-f198.google.com [209.85.220.198]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC256B0024 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:27:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-f198.google.com with SMTP id a207so6074026qkb.23 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com (aserp2120.oracle.com. [141.146.126.78]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v57si2759403qtj.209.2018.03.30.07.27.45 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 07:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 and parallel free References: <20180320085452.24641-1-aaron.lu@intel.com> <2606b76f-be64-4cef-b1f7-055732d09251@oracle.com> <20180330014217.GA28440@intel.com> From: Daniel Jordan Message-ID: Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 10:27:24 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180330014217.GA28440@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Aaron Lu Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Huang Ying , Dave Hansen , Kemi Wang , Tim Chen , Andi Kleen , Michal Hocko , Vlastimil Babka , Mel Gorman , Matthew Wilcox On 03/29/2018 09:42 PM, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 03:19:46PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote: >> On 03/20/2018 04:54 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: >>> This series is meant to improve zone->lock scalability for order 0 pages. >>> With will-it-scale/page_fault1 workload, on a 2 sockets Intel Skylake >>> server with 112 CPUs, CPU spend 80% of its time spinning on zone->lock. >>> Perf profile shows the most time consuming part under zone->lock is the >>> cache miss on "struct page", so here I'm trying to avoid those cache >>> misses. >> >> I ran page_fault1 comparing 4.16-rc5 to your recent work, these four patches >> plus the three others from your github branch zone_lock_rfc_v2. Out of >> curiosity I also threw in another 4.16-rc5 with the pcp batch size adjusted >> so high (10922 pages) that we always stay in the pcp lists and out of buddy >> completely. I used your patch[*] in this last kernel. >> >> This was on a 2-socket, 20-core broadwell server. >> >> There were some small regressions a bit outside the noise at low process >> counts (2-5) but I'm not sure they're repeatable. Anyway, it does improve >> the microbenchmark across the board. > > Thanks for the result. > > The limited improvement is expected since lock contention only shifts, > not entirely gone. So what is interesting to see is how it performs with > v4.16-rc5 + my_zone_lock_patchset + your_lru_lock_patchset Yep, that's 'coming soon.'