On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 9:33 AM Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Previous version: > > v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > RFC: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220901173516.702122-1-surenb@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > LWN article describing the feature: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/906852/ > > > > Per-vma locks idea that was discussed during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM > > last year [2], which concluded with suggestion that “a reader/writer > > semaphore could be put into the VMA itself; that would have the effect of > > using the VMA as a sort of range lock. There would still be contention at > > the VMA level, but it would be an improvement.” This patchset implements > > this suggested approach. > > I took the patches for a spin on a 2-socket 32 core (64 threads) system > with Intel 8336C (Ice Lake) and 512GB of RAM. > > For the initial testing, "pft-threads" from the mm-tests suite[0] was > used. The test mmaps a memory region (~100GB on the test system) and > triggers access by a number of threads executing in parallel. For each > degree of parallelism, the test is repeated 10 times to get a better > feel for the behaviour. Below is an excerpt of the harmonic mean > reported by 'compare_kernel' script[1] included with mm-tests. > > The first column is results for mm-unstable as of 2023-02-10, the second > column is the patches posted here while the third column includes > optimizations to reclaim some of the observed regression. > > From the results, there is a drop in page fault/second for low number of > CPUs but good improvement with higher CPUs. > > 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4 6.2.0-rc4 > mm-unstable-20230210 pvl-v2 pvl-v2+opt > > Hmean faults/cpu-1 898792.9338 ( 0.00%) 894597.0474 * -0.47%* 895933.2782 * -0.32%* > Hmean faults/cpu-4 751903.9803 ( 0.00%) 677764.2975 * -9.86%* 688643.8163 * -8.41%* > Hmean faults/cpu-7 612275.5663 ( 0.00%) 565363.4137 * -7.66%* 597538.9396 * -2.41%* > Hmean faults/cpu-12 434460.9074 ( 0.00%) 410974.2708 * -5.41%* 452501.4290 * 4.15%* > Hmean faults/cpu-21 291475.5165 ( 0.00%) 293936.8460 ( 0.84%) 308712.2434 * 5.91%* > Hmean faults/cpu-30 218021.3980 ( 0.00%) 228265.0559 * 4.70%* 241897.5225 * 10.95%* > Hmean faults/cpu-48 141798.5030 ( 0.00%) 162322.5972 * 14.47%* 166081.9459 * 17.13%* > Hmean faults/cpu-79 90060.9577 ( 0.00%) 107028.7779 * 18.84%* 109810.4488 * 21.93%* > Hmean faults/cpu-110 64729.3561 ( 0.00%) 80597.7246 * 24.51%* 83134.0679 * 28.43%* > Hmean faults/cpu-128 55740.1334 ( 0.00%) 68395.4426 * 22.70%* 69248.2836 * 24.23%* > > Hmean faults/sec-1 898781.7694 ( 0.00%) 894247.3174 * -0.50%* 894440.3118 * -0.48%* > Hmean faults/sec-4 2965588.9697 ( 0.00%) 2683651.5664 * -9.51%* 2726450.9710 * -8.06%* > Hmean faults/sec-7 4144512.3996 ( 0.00%) 3891644.2128 * -6.10%* 4099918.8601 ( -1.08%) > Hmean faults/sec-12 4969513.6934 ( 0.00%) 4829731.4355 * -2.81%* 5264682.7371 * 5.94%* > Hmean faults/sec-21 5814379.4789 ( 0.00%) 5941405.3116 * 2.18%* 6263716.3903 * 7.73%* > Hmean faults/sec-30 6153685.3709 ( 0.00%) 6489311.6634 * 5.45%* 6910843.5858 * 12.30%* > Hmean faults/sec-48 6197953.1327 ( 0.00%) 7216320.7727 * 16.43%* 7412782.2927 * 19.60%* > Hmean faults/sec-79 6167135.3738 ( 0.00%) 7425927.1022 * 20.41%* 7637042.2198 * 23.83%* > Hmean faults/sec-110 6264768.2247 ( 0.00%) 7813329.3863 * 24.72%* 7984344.4005 * 27.45%* > Hmean faults/sec-128 6460727.8216 ( 0.00%) 7875664.8999 * 21.90%* 8049910.3601 * 24.60%* Thanks for summarizing the findings, Punit! So, looks like the latest fixes I sent to you for testing (pvl-v2+opt) bring the regression down quite a bit. faults/sec-4 case is still regressing but the rest look quite good. I'll incorporate those fixes and post v3 shortly. Thanks! > > [0] https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests > [1] https://github.com/gormanm/mmtests/blob/master/compare-kernels.sh
