On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:16 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:06 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > > > > > > > > Using next-20231009 and a similar 44 core machine with hyperthreading > > > > > > disabled, I ran 22 instances of netperf in parallel and got the > > > > > > following numbers from averaging 20 runs: > > > > > > > > > > > > Base: 33076.5 mbps > > > > > > Patched: 31410.1 mbps > > > > > > > > > > > > That's about 5% diff. I guess the number of iterations helps reduce > > > > > > the noise? I am not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please also keep in mind that in this case all netperf instances are > > > > > > in the same cgroup and at a 4-level depth. I imagine in a practical > > > > > > setup processes would be a little more spread out, which means less > > > > > > common ancestors, so less contended atomic operations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (Resending the reply as I messed up the last one, was not in plain text) > > > > > > > > > > I was curious, so I ran the same testing in a cgroup 2 levels deep > > > > > (i.e /sys/fs/cgroup/a/b), which is a much more common setup in my > > > > > experience. Here are the numbers: > > > > > > > > > > Base: 40198.0 mbps > > > > > Patched: 38629.7 mbps > > > > > > > > > > The regression is reduced to ~3.9%. > > > > > > > > > > What's more interesting is that going from a level 2 cgroup to a level > > > > > 4 cgroup is already a big hit with or without this patch: > > > > > > > > > > Base: 40198.0 -> 33076.5 mbps (~17.7% regression) > > > > > Patched: 38629.7 -> 31410.1 (~18.7% regression) > > > > > > > > > > So going from level 2 to 4 is already a significant regression for > > > > > other reasons (e.g. hierarchical charging). This patch only makes it > > > > > marginally worse. This puts the numbers more into perspective imo than > > > > > comparing values at level 4. What do you think? > > > > > > > > This is weird as we are running the experiments on the same machine. I > > > > will rerun with 2 levels as well. Also can you rerun the page fault > > > > benchmark as well which was showing 9% regression in your original > > > > commit message? > > > > > > Thanks. I will re-run the page_fault tests, but keep in mind that the > > > page fault benchmarks in will-it-scale are highly variable. We run > > > them between kernel versions internally, and I think we ignore any > > > changes below 10% as the benchmark is naturally noisy. > > > > > > I have a couple of runs for page_fault3_scalability showing a 2-3% > > > improvement with this patch :) > > > > I ran the page_fault tests for 10 runs on a machine with 256 cpus in a > > level 2 cgroup, here are the results (the results in the original > > commit message are for 384 cpus in a level 4 cgroup): > > > > LABEL | MEAN | MEDIAN | STDDEV | > > ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+------------- > > page_fault1_per_process_ops | | | | > > (A) base | 270249.164 | 265437.000 | 13451.836 | > > (B) patched | 261368.709 | 255725.000 | 13394.767 | > > | -3.29% | -3.66% | | > > page_fault1_per_thread_ops | | | | > > (A) base | 242111.345 | 239737.000 | 10026.031 | > > (B) patched | 237057.109 | 235305.000 | 9769.687 | > > | -2.09% | -1.85% | | > > page_fault1_scalability | | | > > (A) base | 0.034387 | 0.035168 | 0.0018283 | > > (B) patched | 0.033988 | 0.034573 | 0.0018056 | > > | -1.16% | -1.69% | | > > page_fault2_per_process_ops | | | > > (A) base | 203561.836 | 203301.000 | 2550.764 | > > (B) patched | 197195.945 | 197746.000 | 2264.263 | > > | -3.13% | -2.73% | | > > page_fault2_per_thread_ops | | | > > (A) base | 171046.473 | 170776.000 | 1509.679 | > > (B) patched | 166626.327 | 166406.000 | 768.753 | > > | -2.58% | -2.56% | | > > page_fault2_scalability | | | > > (A) base | 0.054026 | 0.053821 | 0.00062121 | > > (B) patched | 0.053329 | 0.05306 | 0.00048394 | > > | -1.29% | -1.41% | | > > page_fault3_per_process_ops | | | > > (A) base | 1295807.782 | 1297550.000 | 5907.585 | > > (B) patched | 1275579.873 | 1273359.000 | 8759.160 | > > | -1.56% | -1.86% | | > > page_fault3_per_thread_ops | | | > > (A) base | 391234.164 | 390860.000 | 1760.720 | > > (B) patched | 377231.273 | 376369.000 | 1874.971 | > > | -3.58% | -3.71% | | > > page_fault3_scalability | | | > > (A) base | 0.60369 | 0.60072 | 0.0083029 | > > (B) patched | 0.61733 | 0.61544 | 0.009855 | > > | +2.26% | +2.45% | | > > > > The numbers are much better. I can modify the commit log to include > > the testing in the replies instead of what's currently there if this > > helps (22 netperf instances on 44 cpus and will-it-scale page_fault on > > 256 cpus -- all in a level 2 cgroup). > > Yes this looks better. I think we should also ask intel perf and > phoronix folks to run their benchmarks as well (but no need to block > on them). Anything I need to do for this to happen? (I thought such testing is already done on linux-next) Also, any further comments on the patch (or the series in general)? If not, I can send a new commit message for this patch in-place.
