Re: Benchmarking [PATCH v5 00/14] SLUB percpu sheaves

["Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>]

* Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> [250918 07:50]:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 04:59:41PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 9:14 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:19 PM Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 10:09:18AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 8:22 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/15/25 14:13, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 09:51:25AM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Saturday 2025-09-13 02:09, Sudarsan Mahendran wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Summary of the results:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any case, thanks a lot for the results!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> >- Significant change (meaning >10% difference
> > > > > > >> >  between base and experiment) on will-it-scale
> > > > > > >> >  tests in AMD.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Summary of AMD will-it-scale test changes:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >Number of runs : 15
> > > > > > >> >Direction      : + is good
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If STDDEV grows more than mean, there is more jitter,
> > > > > > >> which is not "good".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is true.  On the other hand, the mean grew way more in absolute
> > > > > > > terms than did STDDEV.  So might this be a reasonable tradeoff?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also I'd point out that MIN of TEST is better than MAX of BASE, which means
> > > > > > there's always an improvement for this config. So jitter here means it's
> > > > > > changing between better and more better :) and not between worse and (more)
> > > > > > better.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The annoying part of course is that for other configs it's consistently the
> > > > > > opposite.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vlastimil,
> > > > > I ran my mmap stress test that runs 20000 cycles of mmapping 50 VMAs,
> > > > > faulting them in then unmapping and timing only mmap and munmap calls.
> > > > > This is not a realistic scenario but works well for A/B comparison.
> > > > >
> > > > > The numbers are below with sheaves showing a clear improvement:
> > > > >
> > > > > Baseline
> > > > >             avg             stdev
> > > > > mmap        2.621073        0.2525161631
> > > > > munmap      2.292965        0.008831973052
> > > > > total       4.914038        0.2572620923
> > > > >
> > > > > Sheaves
> > > > >             avg            stdev           avg_diff        stdev_diff
> > > > > mmap        1.561220667    0.07748897037   -40.44%        -69.31%
> > > > > munmap      2.042071       0.03603083448   -10.94%        307.96%
> > > > > total       3.603291667    0.113209047     -26.67%        -55.99%
> > > > >
> > > > Could you run your test with dropping below patch?
> > >
> > > Sure, will try later today and report.
> > 
> > Sheaves with [04/23] patch reverted:
> > 
> >             avg             avg_diff
> > mmap     2.143948        -18.20%
> > munmap     2.343707        2.21%
> > total     4.487655        -8.68%
> > 
> With offloading over sheaves the mmap/munmap is faster, i assume it is
> because of same objects are reused from the sheaves after reclaim. Whereas we,
> kvfree_rcu() just free them.

Sorry, I am having trouble following where you think the speed up is
coming from.

Can you clarify what you mean by offloading and reclaim in this context?

Thanks,
Liam