On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:50:42AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> This is a new AutoNUMA27 release for Linux v3.6.
>
> I believe that this autonuma version answers all of the review
> comments I got upstream. This patch set has undergone a huge series of
> changes that includes changing the page migration implementation to
> synchronous, reduction of memory overhead to minimum, internal
> documentation, external documentation and benchmarking. I'm grateful
> for all the reviews and contributions, that includes Rik, Karen, Avi,
> Peter, Konrad, Hillf and all others, plus all runtime feedback
> received (bugreports, KVM benchmarks, etc..).
>
> The last 4 months were fully dedicated to answer the upstream review.
>
> Linus, Andrew, please review, as the handful of performance results
> show we're in excellent shape for inclusion. Further changes such as
> transparent huge page native migration and more are expected but at
> this point I would ask you to accept the current series and further
> changes will be added in traditional gradual steps.
>
As a basic sniff test I added a test to MMtests for the AutoNUMA
Benchmark on a 4-node machine and the following fell out.
3.6.0 3.6.0
vanilla autonuma-v33r6
User SMT 82851.82 ( 0.00%) 33084.03 ( 60.07%)
User THREAD_ALLOC 142723.90 ( 0.00%) 47707.38 ( 66.57%)
System SMT 396.68 ( 0.00%) 621.46 (-56.67%)
System THREAD_ALLOC 675.22 ( 0.00%) 836.96 (-23.95%)
Elapsed SMT 1987.08 ( 0.00%) 828.57 ( 58.30%)
Elapsed THREAD_ALLOC 3222.99 ( 0.00%) 1101.31 ( 65.83%)
CPU SMT 4189.00 ( 0.00%) 4067.00 ( 2.91%)
CPU THREAD_ALLOC 4449.00 ( 0.00%) 4407.00 ( 0.94%)
The performance improvements are certainly there for this basic test but
I note the System CPU usage is very high.
The vmstats showed up this
THP fault alloc 81376 86070
THP collapse alloc 14 40423
THP splits 8 41792
So we're doing a lot of splits and collapses for THP there. There is a
possibility that khugepaged and the autonuma kernel thread are doing some
busy work. Not a show-stopped, just interesting.
I've done no analysis at all and this was just to have something to look
at before looking at the code closer.
> The objective of AutoNUMA is to provide out-of-the-box performance as
> close as possible to (and potentially faster than) manual NUMA hard
> bindings.
>
> It is not very intrusive into the kernel core and is well structured
> into separate source modules.
>
> AutoNUMA was extensively tested against 3.x upstream kernels and other
> NUMA placement algorithms such as numad (in userland through cpusets)
> and schednuma (in kernel too) and was found superior in all cases.
>
> Most important: not a single benchmark showed a regression yet when
> compared to vanilla kernels. Not even on the 2 node systems where the
> NUMA effects are less significant.
>
Ok, I have not run a general regression test and won't get the chance to
soon but hopefully others will. One thing they might want to watch out
for is System CPU time. It's possible that your AutoNUMA benchmark
triggers a worst-case but it's worth keeping an eye on because any cost
from that has to be offset by gains from better NUMA placements.
> === Some benchmark result ===
>
> <SNIP>
Looked good for the most part.
> == stream modified to run each instance for ~5min ==
>
Is STREAM really a good benchmark in this case? Unless you also ran it in
parallel mode, it basically operations against three arrays and not really
NUMA friendly once the total size is greater than a NUMA node. I guess
it makes sense to run it just to see does autonuma break it :)
>
> == iozone ==
>
> ALL INIT RE RE RANDOM RANDOM BACKWD RECRE STRIDE F FRE F FRE
> FILE TYPE (KB) IOS WRITE WRITE READ READ READ WRITE READ WRITE READ WRITE WRITE READ READ
> ====--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> noautonuma ALL 2492 1224 1874 2699 3669 3724 2327 2638 4091 3525 1142 1692 2668 3696
> autonuma ALL 2531 1221 1886 2732 3757 3760 2380 2650 4192 3599 1150 1731 2712 3825
>
> AutoNUMA can't help much for I/O loads but you can see it seems a
> small improvement there too. The important thing for I/O loads, is to
> verify that there is no regression.
>
It probably is unreasonable to expect autonuma to handle the case where
a file-based workload has not been tuned for NUMA. In too many cases
it's going to be read/write based so you're not going to get the
statistics you need.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>