Sorry to bring up an old thread... On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > > > On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > Insights: Major degradation between #1 and #2, not getting any > > > > close to linerate! Degradation is fixed between #2 and #3. This is > > > > because page allocator cannot stand the higher allocation rate. In > > > > #2, we also see that the addition of rings (cores) reduces BW (!!), > > > > as result of increasing congestion over shared resources. > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, no surprises there. > > > > > > > Congestion in this case is very clear. When monitored in perf > > > > top: 85.58% [kernel] [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > > > > > > > > > While it's not proven, the most likely candidate is the zone lock > > > and that should be confirmed using a call-graph profile. If so, then > > > the suggestion to tune to the size of the per-cpu allocator would > > > mitigate the problem. > > > > > Indeed, I tuned the per-cpu allocator and bottleneck is released. > > > > Hi all, > > After leaving this task for a while doing other tasks, I got back to it now > and see that the good behavior I observed earlier was not stable. I posted a patchset to improve zone->lock contention for order-0 pages recently, it can almost eliminate 80% zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 testcase when tested on a 2 sockets Intel Skylake server and it doesn't require PCP size tune, so should have some effects on your workload where one CPU does allocation while another does free. It did this by some disruptive changes: 1 on free path, it skipped doing merge(so could be bad for mixed workloads where both 4K and high order pages are needed); 2 on allocation path, it avoided touching multiple cachelines. RFC v2 patchset: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/3/20/171 repo: https://github.com/aaronlu/linux zone_lock_rfc_v2 > Recall: I work with a modified driver that allocates a page (4K) per packet > (MTU=1500), in order to simulate the stress on page-allocator in 200Gbps > NICs. > > Performance is good as long as pages are available in the allocating cores's > PCP. > Issue is that pages are allocated in one core, then free'd in another, > making it's hard for the PCP to work efficiently, and both the allocator > core and the freeing core need to access the buddy allocator very often. > > I'd like to share with you some testing numbers: > > Test: ./super_netperf 128 -H 24.134.0.51 -l 1000 > > 100% cpu on all cores, top func in perf: > 84.98% [kernel] [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > system wide (all cores) > 1135941 kmem:mm_page_alloc > > 2606629 kmem:mm_page_free > > 0 kmem:mm_page_alloc_extfrag > 4784616 kmem:mm_page_alloc_zone_locked > > 1337 kmem:mm_page_free_batched > > 6488213 kmem:mm_page_pcpu_drain > > 8925503 net:napi_gro_receive_entry > > > Two types of cores: > A core mostly running napi (8 such cores): > 221875 kmem:mm_page_alloc > > 17100 kmem:mm_page_free > > 0 kmem:mm_page_alloc_extfrag > 766584 kmem:mm_page_alloc_zone_locked > > 16 kmem:mm_page_free_batched > > 35 kmem:mm_page_pcpu_drain > > 1340139 net:napi_gro_receive_entry > > > Other core, mostly running user application (40 such): > 2 kmem:mm_page_alloc > > 38922 kmem:mm_page_free > > 0 kmem:mm_page_alloc_extfrag > 1 kmem:mm_page_alloc_zone_locked > > 8 kmem:mm_page_free_batched > > 107289 kmem:mm_page_pcpu_drain > > 34 net:napi_gro_receive_entry > > > As you can see, sync overhead is enormous. > > PCP-wise, a key improvement in such scenarios would be reached if we could > (1) keep and handle the allocated page on same cpu, or (2) somehow get the > page back to the allocating core's PCP in a fast-path, without going through > the regular buddy allocator paths.
