On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:39:05PM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> On 6/1/21 2:29 pm, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 02:07:12PM +1100, Imran Khan wrote:
> > > On 6/1/21 5:45 am, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 10:23:52AM -0800, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 04:07:42PM +0000, Imran Khan wrote:
> > > > > > While allocating objects whose size is multiple of PAGE_SIZE,
> > > > > > say kmalloc-4K, we charge one page for extra bytes corresponding
> > > > > > to the obj_cgroup membership pointer and remainder of the charged
> > > > > > page gets added to per-cpu stocked bytes. If this allocation is
> > > > > > followed by another allocation of the same size, the stocked bytes
> > > > > > will not suffice and thus we endup charging an extra page
> > > > > > again for membership pointer and remainder of this page gets added
> > > > > > to per-cpu stocked bytes. This second addition will cause amount of
> > > > > > stocked bytes to go beyond PAGE_SIZE and hence will result in
> > > > > > invocation of drain_obj_stock.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So if we are in a scenario where we are consecutively allocating,
> > > > > > several PAGE_SIZE multiple sized objects, the stocked bytes will
> > > > > > never be enough to suffice a request and every second request will
> > > > > > trigger draining of stocked bytes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For example invoking __alloc_skb multiple times with
> > > > > > 2K < packet size < 4K will give a call graph like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __alloc_skb
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > |__kmalloc_reserve.isra.61
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |__kmalloc_node_track_caller
> > > > > > | | |
> > > > > > | | |slab_pre_alloc_hook.constprop.88
> > > > > > | | obj_cgroup_charge
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | | | |__memcg_kmem_charge
> > > > > > | | | | |
> > > > > > | | | | |page_counter_try_charge
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | | | |refill_obj_stock
> > > > > > | | | | |
> > > > > > | | | | |drain_obj_stock.isra.68
> > > > > > | | | | | |
> > > > > > | | | | | |__memcg_kmem_uncharge
> > > > > > | | | | | | |
> > > > > > | | | | | | |page_counter_uncharge
> > > > > > | | | | | | | |
> > > > > > | | | | | | | |page_counter_cancel
> > > > > > | | |
> > > > > > | | |
> > > > > > | | |__slab_alloc
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | | | |___slab_alloc
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | | |slab_post_alloc_hook
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This frequent draining of stock bytes and resultant charging of pages
> > > > > > increases the CPU load and hence deteriorates the scheduler latency.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The above mentioned scenario and it's impact can be seen by running
> > > > > > hackbench with large packet size on v5.8 and subsequent kernels. The
> > > > > > deterioration in hackbench number starts appearing from v5.9 kernel,
> > > > > > 'commit f2fe7b09a52b ("mm: memcg/slab: charge individual slab objects
> > > > > > instead of pages")'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Increasing the draining limit to twice of KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE
> > > > > > (a safe upper limit for size of slab cache objects), will avoid draining
> > > > > > of stock, every second allocation request, for the above mentioned
> > > > > > scenario and hence will reduce the CPU load for such cases. For
> > > > > > allocation of smaller objects or other allocation patterns the behaviour
> > > > > > will be same as before.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This change increases the draining threshold for per-cpu stocked bytes
> > > > > > from PAGE_SIZE to KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE * 2.
> > > > > Hello, Imran!
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it makes total sense to me.
> > > Hi Roman,
> > >
> > > Thanks for reviewing this patch.
> > >
> > > > > Btw, in earlier versions of the new slab controller there was a separate stock
> > > > > for byte-sized charging and it was 32 pages large. Later Johannes suggested
> > > > > the current layered design and he thought that because of the layering a single
> > > > > page is enough for the upper layer.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Below are the hackbench numbers with and without this change on
> > > > > > v5.10.0-rc7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Without this change:
> > > > > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > > > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors
> > > > > > each (== 400 tasks)
> > > > > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > > > > Time: 4.401
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > > > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors
> > > > > > each (== 400 tasks)
> > > > > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > > > > Time: 4.470
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With this change:
> > > > > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > > > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors
> > > > > > each (== 400 tasks)
> > > > > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > > > > Time: 3.782
> > > > > >
> > > > > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > > > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors
> > > > > > each (== 400 tasks)
> > > > > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > > > > Time: 3.827
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As can be seen the change gives an improvement of about 15% in hackbench
> > > > > > numbers.
> > > > > > Also numbers obtained with the change are inline with those obtained
> > > > > > from v5.8 kernel.
> > > > > The difference is quite impressive!
> > > > >
> > > > > I wonder if you tried smaller values than KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE * 2?
> > > > > Let's say 16 and 32?
> > > I have tested my change with smaller sizes as well and could see similar difference
> > > in hackbench numbers
> > >
> > > Without change(5.10.0-rc7 vanilla):
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 16
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 16 bytes
> > > Time: 0.429
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 32
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 32 bytes
> > > Time: 0.458
> > >
> > > With my changes on top of 5.10.0-rc7
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 16
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 16 bytes
> > > Time: 0.347
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 32
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 32 bytes
> > > Time: 0.324
> > >
> > > I am confirming using BCC based argdist tool that these sizes result in call to
> > > __alloc_skb with size as 16 and 32 respectively.
> > >
> > > > > KMALLOC_MAX_CACHE_SIZE * 2 makes sense to me, but then the whole construction
> > > > > with two layer caching is very questionable. Anyway, it's not a reason to not
> > > > > merge your patch, just something I wanna look at later.
> > > > Hm, can you, please, benchmark the following change (without your change)?
> > > >
> > > > @@ -3204,7 +3204,7 @@ static void drain_obj_stock(struct memcg_stock_pcp *stock)
> > > > if (nr_pages) {
> > > > rcu_read_lock();
> > > > - __memcg_kmem_uncharge(obj_cgroup_memcg(old), nr_pages);
> > > > + refill_stock(obj_cgroup_memcg(old), nr_pages);
> > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > }
> > > I have tested this change on top of v5.10-rc7 and this too gives performance improvement.
> > > I further confirmed using flamegraphs that with this change too we are avoiding following
> > > CPU intensive path
> > >
> > > |__memcg_kmem_uncharge
> > > |
> > > |page_counter_uncharge
> > > | |
> > > | |page_counter_cancel
> > >
> > > Please find the hackbench numbers with your change as given below:
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > Time: 3.841
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 100000
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 100000 bytes
> > > Time: 3.863
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 16
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 16 bytes
> > > Time: 0.306
> > >
> > > # hackbench process 10 1000 -s 32
> > > Running in process mode with 10 groups using 40 file descriptors each (== 400 tasks)
> > > Each sender will pass 100 messages of 32 bytes
> > > Time: 0.320
> > Thank you for testing it!
> >
> > If there is no significant difference, I'd prefer to stick with this change instead of increasing
> > the size of the percpu batch, because it will preserve the accuracy of accounting.
> >
> > Will it work for you?
>
> Yes, this works for me too.
Great!
Just sent the full version of the patch (you're in cc).
It's slightly different: initially I've missed the handling of a separate kmem page counter.
There should be no difference on cgroup v2, and hopefully it will be still acceptable on cgroup v1.
Your Tested-by will be highly appreciated.
Thank you!
Roman
