From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:56:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2e172b1-fb2a-57a0-0074-a07a61693e6c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489568404-7817-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com>
On 03/15/2017 09:59 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> For regular processes, the time taken in its exit() path to free its
> used memory is not a problem. But there are heavy ones that consume
> several Terabytes memory and the time taken to free its memory in its
> exit() path could last more than ten minutes if THP is not used.
>
> As Dave Hansen explained why do this in kernel:
> "
> One of the places we saw this happen was when an app crashed and was
> exit()'ing under duress without cleaning up nicely. The time that it
> takes to unmap a few TB of 4k pages is pretty excessive.
> "
Yeah, it would be nice to improve such cases.
> To optimize this use case, a parallel free method is proposed here and
> it is based on the current gather batch free(the following description
> is taken from patch 2/5's changelog).
>
> The current gather batch free works like this:
> For each struct mmu_gather *tlb, there is a static buffer to store those
> to-be-freed page pointers. The size is MMU_GATHER_BUNDLE, which is
> defined to be 8. So if a tlb tear down doesn't free more than 8 pages,
> that is all we need. If 8+ pages are to be freed, new pages will need
> to be allocated to store those to-be-freed page pointers.
>
> The structure used to describe the saved page pointers is called
> struct mmu_gather_batch and tlb->local is of this type. tlb->local is
> different than other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) in that the page
> pointer array used by tlb->local points to the previouslly described
> static buffer while the other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) page pointer
> array points to the dynamically allocated pages.
>
> These batches will form a singly linked list, starting from &tlb->local.
>
> tlb->local.pages => tlb->pages(8 pointers)
> \|/
> next => batch1->pages => about 510 pointers
> \|/
> next => batch2->pages => about 510 pointers
> \|/
> next => batch3->pages => about 510 pointers
> ... ...
>
> The proposed parallel free did this: if the process has many pages to be
> freed, accumulate them in these struct mmu_gather_batch(es) one after
> another till 256K pages are accumulated. Then take this singly linked
> list starting from tlb->local.next off struct mmu_gather *tlb and free
> them in a worker thread. The main thread can return to continue zap
> other pages(after freeing pages pointed by tlb->local.pages).
>
> A test program that did a single malloc() of 320G memory is used to see
> how useful the proposed parallel free solution is, the time calculated
> is for the free() call. Test machine is a Haswell EX which has
> 4nodes/72cores/144threads with 512G memory. All tests are done with THP
> disabled.
>
> kernel time
> v4.10 10.8s A+-2.8%
> this patch(with default setting) 5.795s A+-5.8%
I wonder if the difference would be larger if the parallelism was done
on a higher level, something around unmap_page_range(). IIUC the current
approach still leaves a lot of work to a single thread, right?
I assume it would be more complicated, but doable as we already have the
OOM reaper doing unmaps parallel to other activity? Has that been
considered?
Thanks, Vlastimil
>
> Patch 3/5 introduced a dedicated workqueue for the free workers and
> here are more results when setting different values for max_active of
> this workqueue:
>
> max_active: time
> 1 8.9s A+-0.5%
> 2 5.65s A+-5.5%
> 4 4.84s A+-0.16%
> 8 4.77s A+-0.97%
> 16 4.85s A+-0.77%
> 32 6.21s A+-0.46%
>
> Comments are welcome and appreciated.
>
> v2 changes: Nothing major, only minor ones.
> - rebased on top of v4.11-rc2-mmotm-2017-03-14-15-41;
> - use list_add_tail instead of list_add to add worker to tlb's worker
> list so that when doing flush, the first queued worker gets flushed
> first(based on the comsumption that the first queued worker has a
> better chance of finishing its job than those later queued workers);
> - use bool instead of int for variable free_batch_page in function
> tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches;
> - style change according to ./scripts/checkpatch;
> - reword some of the changelogs to make it more readable.
>
> v1 is here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/24/245
>
> Aaron Lu (5):
> mm: add tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches
> mm: parallel free pages
> mm: use a dedicated workqueue for the free workers
> mm: add force_free_pages in zap_pte_range
> mm: add debugfs interface for parallel free tuning
>
> include/asm-generic/tlb.h | 15 ++---
> mm/memory.c | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 2 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-15 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-15 8:59 Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: add tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: parallel free pages Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:42 ` Hillf Danton
2017-03-15 11:54 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: use a dedicated workqueue for the free workers Aaron Lu
2017-03-22 6:33 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22 8:41 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22 8:55 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22 13:43 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-23 5:53 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-23 15:38 ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-24 12:37 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:00 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: add force_free_pages in zap_pte_range Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 9:00 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] mm: add debugfs interface for parallel free tuning Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 14:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 15:44 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 16:28 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 21:38 ` Tim Chen
2017-03-16 9:07 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-16 18:36 ` Tim Chen
2017-03-17 7:47 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 8:07 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-17 12:33 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17 12:59 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 13:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 12:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 13:05 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-21 14:54 ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-22 8:02 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-24 7:04 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-21 15:18 ` Tim Chen
2017-03-16 6:54 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 7:34 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 13:51 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 14:14 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 14:56 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2017-03-15 15:50 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17 3:10 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 19:38 ` Alex Thorlton
2017-03-17 2:21 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-20 19:15 ` Alex Thorlton
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=c2e172b1-fb2a-57a0-0074-a07a61693e6c@suse.cz \
--to=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@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