Alex Thorlton wrote:
> Kirill,
>
> I've pasted in my results for 512 cores below. Things are looking
> really good here. I don't have a test for HUGETLBFS, but if you want to
> pass me the one you used, I can run that too. I suppose I could write
> one, but why reinvent the wheel? :)
Patch below.
> Sorry for the delay on these results. I hit some strange issues with
> running thp_memscale on systems with either of the following
> combinations of configuration options set:
>
> [thp off]
> HUGETLBFS=y
> HUGETLB_PAGE=y
> NUMA_BALANCING=y
> NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
>
> [thp on or off]
> HUGETLBFS=n
> HUGETLB_PAGE=n
> NUMA_BALANCING=y
> NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y
>
> I'm getting segfaults intermittently, as well as some weird RCU sched
> errors. This happens in vanilla 3.12-rc2, so it doesn't have anything
> to do with your patches, but I thought I'd let you know. There didn't
> used to be any issues with this test, so I think there's a subtle kernel
> bug here. That's, of course, an entirely separate issue though.
I'll take a look next week, if nobody does it before.
>
> As far as these patches go, I think everything looks good (save for the
> bit of discussion you were having with Andrew earlier, which I think
> you've worked out). My testing shows that the page fault rates are
> actually better on this threaded test than in the non-threaded case!
>
> - Alex
>
> THP on, v3.12-rc2:
> ------------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './thp_memscale -C 0 -m 0 -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 568668865.944994 task-clock # 528.547 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
> 1,491,589 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.25% ) [100.00%]
> 1,085 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.80% ) [100.00%]
> 400,822 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 0.41% )
> 1,306,612,476,049,478 cycles # 2.298 GHz ( +- 0.23% ) [100.00%]
> 1,277,211,694,318,724 stalled-cycles-frontend # 97.75% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.21% ) [100.00%]
> 1,163,736,844,232,064 stalled-cycles-backend # 89.07% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.20% ) [100.00%]
> 53,855,178,678,230 instructions # 0.04 insns per cycle
> # 23.72 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 1.15% ) [100.00%]
> 21,041,661,816,782 branches # 37.002 M/sec ( +- 0.64% ) [100.00%]
> 606,665,092 branch-misses # 0.00% of all branches ( +- 0.63% )
>
> 1075.909782795 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.21% )
>
> THP on, patched:
> ----------------
>
> Performance counter stats for './runt -t -c 512 -b 512m' (5 runs):
>
> 15836198.490485 task-clock # 533.304 CPUs utilized ( +- 0.95% ) [100.00%]
> 127,507 context-switches # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 1.65% ) [100.00%]
> 1,223 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 3.23% ) [100.00%]
> 302,080 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec ( +- 6.88% )
> 18,925,875,973,975 cycles # 1.195 GHz ( +- 0.43% ) [100.00%]
> 18,325,469,464,007 stalled-cycles-frontend # 96.83% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0.44% ) [100.00%]
> 17,522,272,147,141 stalled-cycles-backend # 92.58% backend cycles idle ( +- 0.49% ) [100.00%]
> 2,686,490,067,197 instructions # 0.14 insns per cycle
> # 6.82 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 2.16% ) [100.00%]
> 944,712,646,402 branches # 59.655 M/sec ( +- 2.03% ) [100.00%]
> 145,956,565 branch-misses # 0.02% of all branches ( +- 0.88% )
>
> 29.694499652 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0.95% )
>
> (these results are from the test suite that I ripped thp_memscale out
> of, but it's the same test)
36 times faster. Not bad I think. ;)
Naive patch to use HUGETLB:
--- thp_memscale/thp_memscale.c 2013-09-23 23:44:21.000000000 +0300
+++ thp_memscale/thp_memscale.c 2013-09-26 17:45:47.878429885 +0300
@@ -191,7 +191,10 @@
int id, i, cnt;
id = (long)arg;
- p = malloc(bytes);
+ p = mmap(NULL, bytes, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
+ MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE | MAP_HUGETLB, 0, 0);
+ if (p == MAP_FAILED)
+ perrorx("mmap failed");
ps = p;
if (runon(basecpu + id) < 0)
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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>