Hi, all. I’ve got around to collect more performance data with macro-benchmarks from the LKP suite[1]. Specifically, I measured more than 2.5x improvement with fsmark and up to nearly 2x improvement with AIM7. Note that similar improvements have been previously reported by the kernel test robot [2,3], but it is nice to see that they are reproducible on our system as well. The details appear below. Our performance team also evaluated the performance of TPC-C with Oracle DB on the patched kernel with CNA. The evaluation, carried on a system equipped with two AMD EPYC 7551 processors, showed no sensitivity to CNA -- no improvements, no regressions. ============= The following results are from an Oracle X5-8 server (eight Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded cores each). Each number represents average throughput over 25 runs. The standard deviation is also reported in (), and it was pretty large in some experiments. The following results are from the fsmark benchmark (based on the `fsmark-generic-1brd-1BRD_48G-4M-btrfs-1x-*t-NoSync-24G` config). The reported numbers represent `files-per-sec`. num-threads stock CNA / speedup 1 400.216 (7.399) 403.212 (7.169) / 1.007 2 784.484 (13.809) 778.196 (22.699) / 0.992 4 1153.792 (54.699) 1130.140 (53.823) / 0.980 8 1240.424 (160.453) 1287.532 (169.659) / 1.038 16 1440.720 (182.555) 1489.288 (148.604) / 1.034 32 1600.432 (59.944) 1860.652 (212.971) / 1.163 64 1169.740 (40.815) 3027.680 (142.349) / 2.588 72 1174.240 (39.261) 2682.560 (543.690) / 2.285 144 1164.296 (42.441) 2842.684 (400.664) / 2.442 216 1174.312 (38.392) 2445.168 (575.668) / 2.082 286 1174.732 (52.430) 2598.444 (468.615) / 2.212 We also experimented with another config (`fsmark-generic-1brd-1BRD_48G-4M-btrfs-1x-*t-fsyncBeforeClose-24G`) and measured more modest, yet robust improvement: num-threads stock CNA / speedup 1 177.304 (3.659) 178.596 (3.299) / 1.007 2 345.260 (8.398) 349.384 (5.706) / 1.012 4 647.292 (14.982) 648.164 (11.286) / 1.001 8 1008.304 (46.342) 1007.108 (37.765) / 0.999 16 1116.652 (57.816) 1150.752 (49.005) / 1.031 32 1229.760 (84.932) 1346.132 (80.935) / 1.095 64 981.564 (59.533) 1313.992 (74.971) / 1.339 72 995.180 (59.228) 1266.660 (63.287) / 1.273 144 978.448 (69.581) 1290.336 (43.065) / 1.319 216 1011.880 (60.154) 1310.524 (61.631) / 1.295 286 985.164 (67.016) 1305.244 (63.735) / 1.325 The following results are from the AIM7 benchmark (based on the `aim7-fs-raid-4BRD_12G-btrfs-*-RAID0-disk_rr` config). Here we vary the load, and measure performance in `jobs-per-minute` units. Due to time limitations, each experiment was repeated only 7 times. load stock CNA / speedup 2 965.631 (1.696) 963.969 (0.965) / 0.998 20 7901.647 (116.671) 8256.576 (93.362) / 1.045 100 16409.144 (280.828) 23380.819 (279.365) / 1.425 500 20355.541 (353.862) 34281.836 (873.357) / 1.684 1000 20733.947 (507.388) 36546.829 (695.273) / 1.763 1500 21570.639 (499.205) 37078.249 (806.669) / 1.719 3000 22068.761 (415.813) 36649.144 (1219.638) / 1.661 9000 19551.681 (337.232) 37998.464 (687.059) / 1.943 Best regards, — Alex [1] https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git [2] https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/lkp@xxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/HGVOCYDEE5KTLYPTAFBD2RXDQOCDPFUJ/ [3] https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/lkp@xxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/DNMEQPXJRQY2IKHZ3ERGRY6TUPWDTFUN/ > On May 14, 2021, at 4:07 PM, Alex Kogan <alex.kogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Changes from v14: > ---------------- > > - Change the way the main queue is scanned and reordered in > cna_wait_head_or_lock(), based on Peter's suggestion. > > In detail: instead of inspecting only one queue node, we now scan > (and move nodes into the secondary queue) as long as the lock > remains busy. This simplified the code quite a bit, as we don't need > to call cna_order_queue() again from cna_lock_handoff(). > > - Use local_clock() instead of relying on jiffies to decide when to > flush the secondary queue, per Andy's suggestion. > > - Use module_param() for numa_spinlock_threshold_ns, so it can be tweaked > at runtime, per Andy's suggestion. > > - Reduce the default value for numa_spinlock_threshold_ns to 1ms based on > the comments from Andy and Peter. The performance numbers below include > results with the new default as well as with the value of 10ms, which was > the default threshold in previous revisions of the series. > > Summary > ------- > > Lock throughput can be increased by handing a lock to a waiter on the > same NUMA node as the lock holder, provided care is taken to avoid > starvation of waiters on other NUMA nodes. This patch introduces CNA > (compact NUMA-aware lock) as the slow path for qspinlock. It is > enabled through a configuration option (NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS). > > CNA is a NUMA-aware version of the MCS lock. Spinning threads are > organized in two queues, a primary queue for threads running on the same > node as the current lock holder, and a secondary queue for threads > running on other nodes. Threads store the ID of the node on which > they are running in their queue nodes. After acquiring the MCS lock and > before acquiring the spinlock, the MCS lock holder checks whether the next > waiter in the primary queue (if exists) is running on the same NUMA node. > If it is not, that waiter is detached from the main queue and moved into > the tail of the secondary queue. This way, we gradually filter the primary > queue, leaving only waiters running on the same preferred NUMA node. Note > that certain priortized waiters (e.g., in irq and nmi contexts) are > excluded from being moved to the secondary queue. We change the NUMA node > preference after a waiter at the head of the secondary queue spins for a > certain amount of time. We do that by flushing the secondary queue into > the head of the primary queue, effectively changing the preference to the > NUMA node of the waiter at the head of the secondary queue at the time of > the flush. > > More details are available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.05600. > > We have done some performance evaluation with the locktorture module > as well as with several benchmarks from the will-it-scale repo. > The following locktorture results are from an Oracle X5-4 server > (four Intel Xeon E7-8895 v3 @ 2.60GHz sockets with 18 hyperthreaded > cores each). Each number represents an average (over 25 runs) of the > total number of ops (x10^7) reported at the end of each run. The > standard deviation is also reported in (), and in general is about 3% > from the average. The 'stock' kernel is v5.12.0, > commit 3cf5c8ea3a66, compiled in the default configuration. > 'CNA' is the modified kernel with NUMA_AWARE_SPINLOCKS set and > the new default threshold of 1ms for flushing the secondary queue > (numa_spinlock_threshold_ns); 'CNA-10ms' is the same as CNA, > but uses the threshold of 10ms. The speedup is calculated by dividing > the result of 'CNA' and 'CNA-10ms', respectively, by the result > achieved with 'stock'. > > #thr stock CNA / speedup CNA-10ms / speedup > 1 2.695 (0.108) 2.704 (0.099) / 1.003 2.712 (0.077) / 1.006 > 2 2.753 (0.187) 2.785 (0.171) / 1.012 2.822 (0.174) / 1.025 > 4 4.355 (0.139) 4.417 (0.179) / 1.014 4.361 (0.181) / 1.001 > 8 5.163 (0.119) 7.017 (0.195) / 1.359 7.369 (0.186) / 1.427 > 16 5.944 (0.134) 9.110 (0.242) / 1.532 9.187 (0.233) / 1.546 > 32 6.310 (0.082) 9.710 (0.156) / 1.539 9.827 (0.161) / 1.557 > 36 6.374 (0.112) 9.777 (0.141) / 1.534 9.830 (0.124) / 1.542 > 72 6.170 (0.139) 9.922 (0.190) / 1.608 9.945 (0.136) / 1.612 > 108 6.002 (0.089) 9.651 (0.176) / 1.608 9.847 (0.125) / 1.641 > 142 5.784 (0.079) 9.477 (0.089) / 1.638 9.641 (0.113) / 1.667 > > The following tables contain throughput results (ops/us) from the same > setup for will-it-scale/open1_threads: > > #thr stock CNA / speedup CNA-10ms / speedup > 1 0.503 (0.004) 0.501 (0.001) / 0.996 0.503 (0.002) / 1.000 > 2 0.783 (0.014) 0.773 (0.011) / 0.988 0.774 (0.016) / 0.989 > 4 1.422 (0.025) 1.398 (0.030) / 0.983 1.403 (0.025) / 0.987 > 8 1.753 (0.104) 1.641 (0.132) / 0.936 1.675 (0.134) / 0.956 > 16 1.851 (0.097) 1.760 (0.103) / 0.951 1.774 (0.119) / 0.959 > 32 0.905 (0.081) 1.708 (0.081) / 1.888 1.738 (0.069) / 1.922 > 36 0.895 (0.058) 1.726 (0.065) / 1.928 1.735 (0.081) / 1.938 > 72 0.823 (0.033) 1.610 (0.067) / 1.957 1.647 (0.067) / 2.002 > 108 0.845 (0.035) 1.588 (0.054) / 1.878 1.740 (0.067) / 2.058 > 142 0.840 (0.030) 1.546 (0.042) / 1.839 1.740 (0.048) / 2.070 > > and will-it-scale/lock2_threads: > > #thr stock CNA / speedup CNA-10ms / speedup > 1 1.551 (0.003) 1.558 (0.006) / 1.005 1.558 (0.003) / 1.005 > 2 2.722 (0.064) 2.704 (0.063) / 0.993 2.727 (0.058) / 1.002 > 4 5.286 (0.178) 5.360 (0.151) / 1.014 5.360 (0.135) / 1.014 > 8 4.115 (0.297) 3.906 (0.383) / 0.949 4.062 (0.366) / 0.987 > 16 4.119 (0.121) 3.950 (0.131) / 0.959 4.009 (0.132) / 0.973 > 32 2.508 (0.097) 3.805 (0.106) / 1.517 3.960 (0.091) / 1.579 > 36 2.457 (0.101) 3.810 (0.072) / 1.551 3.931 (0.106) / 1.600 > 72 1.913 (0.103) 3.530 (0.070) / 1.845 3.860 (0.078) / 2.018 > 108 1.891 (0.109) 3.410 (0.079) / 1.803 3.881 (0.097) / 2.052 > 142 1.752 (0.096) 3.236 (0.080) / 1.847 3.774 (0.078) / 2.155 > > Our evaluation shows that CNA also improves performance of user > applications that have hot pthread mutexes. Those mutexes are > blocking, and waiting threads park and unpark via the futex > mechanism in the kernel. Given that kernel futex chains, which > are hashed by the mutex address, are each protected by a > chain-specific spin lock, the contention on a user-mode mutex > translates into contention on a kernel level spinlock. > > Here are the throughput results (ops/us) for the leveldb ‘readrandom’ > benchmark: > > #thr stock CNA / speedup CNA-10ms / speedup > 1 0.533 (0.011) 0.539 (0.014) / 1.012 0.536 (0.013) / 1.006 > 2 0.854 (0.022) 0.856 (0.017) / 1.003 0.857 (0.020) / 1.004 > 4 1.236 (0.028) 1.238 (0.054) / 1.002 1.217 (0.054) / 0.985 > 8 1.207 (0.117) 1.198 (0.122) / 0.993 1.155 (0.138) / 0.957 > 16 0.758 (0.055) 1.128 (0.118) / 1.489 1.068 (0.131) / 1.409 > 32 0.743 (0.027) 1.153 (0.028) / 1.551 1.147 (0.021) / 1.543 > 36 0.708 (0.027) 1.150 (0.024) / 1.623 1.137 (0.026) / 1.605 > 72 0.629 (0.016) 1.112 (0.019) / 1.767 1.134 (0.019) / 1.802 > 108 0.610 (0.012) 1.053 (0.018) / 1.725 1.130 (0.017) / 1.853 > 142 0.606 (0.013) 1.008 (0.020) / 1.664 1.110 (0.023) / 1.833 > > Further comments are welcome and appreciated. > > Alex Kogan (6): > locking/qspinlock: Rename mcs lock/unlock macros and make them more > generic > locking/qspinlock: Refactor the qspinlock slow path > locking/qspinlock: Introduce CNA into the slow path of qspinlock > locking/qspinlock: Introduce starvation avoidance into CNA > locking/qspinlock: Avoid moving certain threads between waiting queues > in CNA > locking/qspinlock: Introduce the shuffle reduction optimization into > CNA > > .../admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 18 + > arch/arm/include/asm/mcs_spinlock.h | 6 +- > arch/x86/Kconfig | 20 + > arch/x86/include/asm/qspinlock.h | 4 + > arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c | 4 + > include/asm-generic/mcs_spinlock.h | 4 +- > kernel/locking/mcs_spinlock.h | 20 +- > kernel/locking/qspinlock.c | 82 +++- > kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h | 425 ++++++++++++++++++ > kernel/locking/qspinlock_paravirt.h | 2 +- > 10 files changed, 562 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 kernel/locking/qspinlock_cna.h > > -- > 2.24.3 (Apple Git-128) >
