On Thu, 21 Jan 2021 at 06:31, Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 06:36:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2020 at 09:28, Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The page order of the slab that gets chosen for a given slab
> > > cache depends on the number of objects that can be fit in the
> > > slab while meeting other requirements. We start with a value
> > > of minimum objects based on nr_cpu_ids that is driven by
> > > possible number of CPUs and hence could be higher than the
> > > actual number of CPUs present in the system. This leads to
> > > calculate_order() chosing a page order that is on the higher
> > > side leading to increased slab memory consumption on systems
> > > that have bigger page sizes.
> > >
> > > Hence rely on the number of online CPUs when determining the
> > > mininum objects, thereby increasing the chances of chosing
> > > a lower conservative page order for the slab.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > This is a generic change and I am unsure how it would affect
> > > other archs, but as a start, here are some numbers from
> > > PowerPC pseries KVM guest with and without this patch:
> > >
> > > This table shows how this change has affected some of the slab
> > > caches.
> > > ===================================================================
> > > Current Patched
> > > Cache <objperslab> <pagesperslab> <objperslab> <pagesperslab>
> > > ===================================================================
> > > TCPv6 53 2 26 1
> > > net_namespace 53 4 26 2
> > > dtl 32 2 16 1
> > > names_cache 32 2 16 1
> > > task_struct 53 8 13 2
> > > thread_stack 32 8 8 2
> > > pgtable-2^11 16 8 8 4
> > > pgtable-2^8 32 2 16 1
> > > kmalloc-32k 16 8 8 4
> > > kmalloc-16k 32 8 8 2
> > > kmalloc-8k 32 4 8 1
> > > kmalloc-4k 32 2 16 1
> > > ===================================================================
> > >
> > > Slab memory (kB) consumption comparision
> > > ==================================================================
> > > Current Patched
> > > ==================================================================
> > > After-boot 205760 156096
> > > During-hackbench 629145 506752 (Avg of 5 runs)
> > > After-hackbench 474176 331840 (after drop_caches)
> > > ==================================================================
> > >
> > > Hackbench Time (Avg of 5 runs)
> > > (hackbench -s 1024 -l 200 -g 200 -f 25 -P)
> > > ==========================================
> > > Current Patched
> > > ==========================================
> > > 10.990 11.010
> > > ==========================================
> > >
> > > Measuring the effect due to CPU hotplug
> > > ----------------------------------------
> > > Since the patch doesn't consider all the possible CPUs for page
> > > order calcluation, let's see how affects the case when CPUs are
> > > hotplugged. Here I compare a system that is booted with 64CPUs
> > > with a system that is booted with 16CPUs but hotplugged with
> > > 48CPUs after boot. These numbers are with the patch applied.
> > >
> > > Slab memory (kB) consumption comparision
> > > ===================================================================
> > > 64bootCPUs 16bootCPUs+48HotPluggedCPUs
> > > ===================================================================
> > > After-boot 390272 159744
> > > After-hotplug - 251328
> > > During-hackbench 1001267 941926 (Avg of 5 runs)
> > > After-hackbench 913600 827200 (after drop_caches)
> > > ===================================================================
> > >
> > > Hackbench Time (Avg of 5 runs)
> > > (hackbench -s 1024 -l 200 -g 200 -f 25 -P)
> > > ===========================================
> > > 64bootCPUs 16bootCPUs+48HotPluggedCPUs
> > > ===========================================
> > > 12.554 12.589
> > > ===========================================
> > > mm/slub.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> >
> > I'm facing significant performances regression on a large arm64 server
> > system (224 CPUs). Regressions is also present on small arm64 system
> > (8 CPUs) but in a far smaller order of magnitude
> >
> > On 224 CPUs system : 9 iterations of hackbench -l 16000 -g 16
> > v5.11-rc4 : 9.135sec (+/- 0.45%)
> > v5.11-rc4 + revert this patch: 3.173sec (+/- 0.48%)
> > v5.10: 3.136sec (+/- 0.40%)
> >
> > This is a 191% regression compared to v5.10.
> >
> > The problem is that calculate_order() is called a number of times
> > before secondaries CPUs are booted and it returns 1 instead of 224.
> > This makes the use of num_online_cpus() irrelevant for those cases
> >
> > After adding in my command line "slub_min_objects=36" which equals to
> > 4 * (fls(num_online_cpus()) + 1) with a correct num_online_cpus == 224
> > , the regression diseapears:
> >
> > 9 iterations of hackbench -l 16000 -g 16: 3.201sec (+/- 0.90%)
>
> Should we have switched to num_present_cpus() rather than
> num_online_cpus()? If so, the below patch should address the
> above problem.
The problem is the same with num_present_cpus() which is initialized
at the same time as num_online_cpus.
Only num_possible_cpus() returns a correct value just like nr_cpu_ids.
Both num_possible_cpus and nr_cpu_ids return the number of CPUs of
the platforms and not the NR_CPUS
num_possible_cpus() = nr_cpu_ids = 224 from the beginning whereas
NR_CPUS=256 on my large system
num_possible_cpus() = nr_cpu_ids = 8 from the beginning whereas
NR_CPUS=256 on my small system
>
> From 252b332ccbee7152da1e18f1fff5b83f8e01b8df Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 10:35:08 +0530
> Subject: [PATCH] mm/slub: let number of present CPUs determine the slub
> page order
>
> Commit 045ab8c9487b ("mm/slub: let number of online CPUs determine
> the slub page order") changed the slub page order to depend on
> num_online_cpus() from nr_cpu_ids. However we find that certain
> caches (kmalloc) are initialized even before the secondary CPUs
> are onlined resulting in lower slub page order and subsequent
> regression.
>
> Switch to num_present_cpus() instead.
>
> Reported-by: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bharata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 045ab8c9487b ("mm/slub: let number of online CPUs determine the slub page order")
> ---
> mm/slub.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
> index d9e4e10683cc..2f3e412c849d 100644
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -3433,7 +3433,7 @@ static inline int calculate_order(unsigned int size)
> */
> min_objects = slub_min_objects;
> if (!min_objects)
> - min_objects = 4 * (fls(num_online_cpus()) + 1);
> + min_objects = 4 * (fls(num_present_cpus()) + 1);
> max_objects = order_objects(slub_max_order, size);
> min_objects = min(min_objects, max_objects);
>
> --
> 2.26.2
>
>
>
