From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f199.google.com (mail-qk0-f199.google.com [209.85.220.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA7116B000E for ; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 07:19:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qk0-f199.google.com with SMTP id x186-v6so9574670qkb.0 for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 04:19:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com. [66.187.233.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d36-v6si976398qtk.281.2018.06.07.04.19.29 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 04:19:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [4.17 regression] Performance drop on kernel-4.17 visible on Stream, Linpack and NAS parallel benchmarks References: <20180606122731.GB27707@jra-laptop.brq.redhat.com> <20180607110713.GJ32433@dhcp22.suse.cz> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jakub_Ra=c4=8dek?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:19:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180607110713.GJ32433@dhcp22.suse.cz> 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: Michal Hocko Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org Hi, On 06/07/2018 01:07 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > [CCing Mel and MM mailing list] > > On Wed 06-06-18 14:27:32, Jakub Racek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There is a huge performance regression on the 2 and 4 NUMA node systems on >> stream benchmark with 4.17 kernel compared to 4.16 kernel. Stream, Linpack >> and NAS parallel benchmarks show upto 50% performance drop. >> >> When running for example 20 stream processes in parallel, we see the following behavior: >> >> * all processes are started at NODE #1 >> * memory is also allocated on NODE #1 >> * roughly half of the processes are moved to the NODE #0 very quickly. * >> however, memory is not moved to NODE #0 and stays allocated on NODE #1 >> >> As the result, half of the processes are running on NODE#0 with memory being >> still allocated on NODE#1. This leads to non-local memory accesses >> on the high Remote-To-Local Memory Access Ratio on the numatop charts. >> >> So it seems that 4.17 is not doing a good job to move the memory to the right NUMA >> node after the process has been moved. >> >> ----8<---- >> >> The above is an excerpt from performance testing on 4.16 and 4.17 kernels. >> >> For now I'm merely making sure the problem is reported. > > Do you have numa balancing enabled? > Yes. The relevant settings are: kernel.numa_balancing = 1 kernel.numa_balancing_scan_delay_ms = 1000 kernel.numa_balancing_scan_period_max_ms = 60000 kernel.numa_balancing_scan_period_min_ms = 1000 kernel.numa_balancing_scan_size_mb = 256 -- Best regards, Jakub Racek FMK