On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 01:16:11PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 05:47:59PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Changelog since V3
> > o Push down kwapd changes to cover the balance gap
> > o Drop drop page distribution patch
> >
> > Changelog since V2
> > o Simply fair zone policy cost reduction
> > o Drop CFQ patch
> >
> > Changelog since v1
> > o Rebase to v3.16-rc2
> > o Move CFQ patch to end of series where it can be rejected easier if necessary
> > o Introduce page-reclaim related patch related to kswapd/fairzone interactions
> > o Rework fast zone policy patch
> >
> > IO performance since 3.0 has been a mixed bag. In many respects we are
> > better and in some we are worse and one of those places is sequential
> > read throughput. This is visible in a number of benchmarks but I looked
> > at tiobench the closest. This is using ext3 on a mid-range desktop and
> > the series applied.
> >
> > 3.16.0-rc2 3.0.0 3.16.0-rc2
> > vanilla vanilla fairzone-v4r5
> > Min SeqRead-MB/sec-1 120.92 ( 0.00%) 133.65 ( 10.53%) 140.68 ( 16.34%)
> > Min SeqRead-MB/sec-2 100.25 ( 0.00%) 121.74 ( 21.44%) 118.13 ( 17.84%)
> > Min SeqRead-MB/sec-4 96.27 ( 0.00%) 113.48 ( 17.88%) 109.84 ( 14.10%)
> > Min SeqRead-MB/sec-8 83.55 ( 0.00%) 97.87 ( 17.14%) 89.62 ( 7.27%)
> > Min SeqRead-MB/sec-16 66.77 ( 0.00%) 82.59 ( 23.69%) 70.49 ( 5.57%)
> >
> > Overall system CPU usage is reduced
> >
> > 3.16.0-rc2 3.0.0 3.16.0-rc2
> > vanilla vanilla fairzone-v4
> > User 390.13 251.45 396.13
> > System 404.41 295.13 389.61
> > Elapsed 5412.45 5072.42 5163.49
> >
> > This series does not fully restore throughput performance to 3.0 levels
> > but it brings it close for lower thread counts. Higher thread counts are
> > known to be worse than 3.0 due to CFQ changes but there is no appetite
> > for changing the defaults there.
>
> I ran tiobench locally and here are the results:
>
> tiobench MB/sec
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-1 129.66 ( 0.00%) 156.16 ( 20.44%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-2 115.74 ( 0.00%) 138.50 ( 19.66%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-4 110.21 ( 0.00%) 127.08 ( 15.31%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-8 101.70 ( 0.00%) 108.47 ( 6.65%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-16 86.45 ( 0.00%) 91.57 ( 5.92%)
> Mean RandRead-MB/sec-1 1.14 ( 0.00%) 1.11 ( -2.35%)
> Mean RandRead-MB/sec-2 1.30 ( 0.00%) 1.25 ( -3.85%)
> Mean RandRead-MB/sec-4 1.50 ( 0.00%) 1.46 ( -2.23%)
> Mean RandRead-MB/sec-8 1.72 ( 0.00%) 1.60 ( -6.96%)
> Mean RandRead-MB/sec-16 1.72 ( 0.00%) 1.69 ( -2.13%)
>
> Seqread throughput is up, randread takes a small hit. But allocation
> latency is badly screwed at higher concurrency levels:
>
So the results are roughly similar. You don't state which filesystem it is
but FWIW if it's the ext3 filesystem using the ext4 driver then throughput
at higher levels is also affected by filesystem fragmentation. The problem
was outside the scope of the series.
> tiobench Maximum Latency
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8
> Mean SeqRead-MaxLatency-1 77.23 ( 0.00%) 57.69 ( 25.30%)
> Mean SeqRead-MaxLatency-2 228.80 ( 0.00%) 218.50 ( 4.50%)
> Mean SeqRead-MaxLatency-4 329.58 ( 0.00%) 325.93 ( 1.11%)
> Mean SeqRead-MaxLatency-8 485.13 ( 0.00%) 475.35 ( 2.02%)
> Mean SeqRead-MaxLatency-16 599.10 ( 0.00%) 637.89 ( -6.47%)
> Mean RandRead-MaxLatency-1 66.98 ( 0.00%) 18.21 ( 72.81%)
> Mean RandRead-MaxLatency-2 132.88 ( 0.00%) 119.61 ( 9.98%)
> Mean RandRead-MaxLatency-4 222.95 ( 0.00%) 213.82 ( 4.10%)
> Mean RandRead-MaxLatency-8 982.99 ( 0.00%) 1009.71 ( -2.72%)
> Mean RandRead-MaxLatency-16 515.24 ( 0.00%) 1883.82 (-265.62%)
> Mean SeqWrite-MaxLatency-1 239.78 ( 0.00%) 233.61 ( 2.57%)
> Mean SeqWrite-MaxLatency-2 517.85 ( 0.00%) 413.39 ( 20.17%)
> Mean SeqWrite-MaxLatency-4 249.10 ( 0.00%) 416.33 (-67.14%)
> Mean SeqWrite-MaxLatency-8 629.31 ( 0.00%) 851.62 (-35.33%)
> Mean SeqWrite-MaxLatency-16 987.05 ( 0.00%) 1080.92 ( -9.51%)
> Mean RandWrite-MaxLatency-1 0.01 ( 0.00%) 0.01 ( 0.00%)
> Mean RandWrite-MaxLatency-2 0.02 ( 0.00%) 0.02 ( 0.00%)
> Mean RandWrite-MaxLatency-4 0.02 ( 0.00%) 0.02 ( 0.00%)
> Mean RandWrite-MaxLatency-8 1.83 ( 0.00%) 1.96 ( -6.73%)
> Mean RandWrite-MaxLatency-16 1.52 ( 0.00%) 1.33 ( 12.72%)
>
> Zone fairness is completely gone. The overall allocation distribution
> on this system goes from 40%/60% to 10%/90%, and during the workload
> the DMA32 zone is not used *at all*:
>
The zone fairness gets effectively disabled when the streaming is using all
of physical memory and reclaiming behind anyway as kswapd. The allocator is
using the preferred zone while reclaim scans behind it. If you run tiobench
with a size that fits within memory then the IO results themselves are
valid but it should show that the zone allocation is still spread fairly.
This is from a tiobench configuration that fits within memory.
3.16.0-rc2 3.16.0-rc2
vanilla fairzone-v4
DMA32 allocs 10809658 10904632
Normal allocs 18401594 18342985
In this case there was no reclaim activity.
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8
> Zone normal velocity 11358.492 17996.733
> Zone dma32 velocity 8213.852 0.000
>
Showing that when the IO workload is twice memory that it stays confined
within one zone. Considering that this is a streaming workload for the
most part and we're discarding behind it was of less concern considering
that interleaving results in the wrong reclaim decisions being made.
> Both negative effects stem from kswapd suddenly ignoring the classzone
> index while the page allocator respects it: the page allocator will
> keep the low wmark + lowmem reserves in DMA32 free, but kswapd won't
> reclaim in there until it drops down to the high watermark. The low
> watermark + lowmem reserve is usually bigger than the high watermark,
> so you effectively disable kswapd service in DMA32 for user requests.
> The zone is then no longer used until it fills with enough kernel
> pages to trigger kswapd, or the workload goes into direct reclaim.
>
Yes. If the classzone index was preserved or the balance gap then the same
regression exists. The interleaving from the allocator and ordering of kswapd
activity on the lower zones reclaimed pages before they were finished with.
> The classzone change is a non-sensical change IMO, and there is no
> useful description of it to be found in the changelog. But for the
> given tests it appears to be the only change in the entire series to
> make a measurable difference; reverting it gets me back to baseline:
>
> tiobench MB/sec
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8 seqreadv4r8classzone
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-1 129.66 ( 0.00%) 156.16 ( 20.44%) 129.72 ( 0.05%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-2 115.74 ( 0.00%) 138.50 ( 19.66%) 115.61 ( -0.11%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-4 110.21 ( 0.00%) 127.08 ( 15.31%) 110.15 ( -0.06%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-8 101.70 ( 0.00%) 108.47 ( 6.65%) 102.15 ( 0.44%)
> Mean SeqRead-MB/sec-16 86.45 ( 0.00%) 91.57 ( 5.92%) 86.63 ( 0.20%)
>
That is consistent with my own tests. The single patch that remained was
the logical change.
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8seqreadv4r8classzone
> User 272.45 277.17 272.23
> System 197.89 186.30 193.73
> Elapsed 4589.17 4356.23 4584.57
>
> 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1 3.16-rc1
> seqreadv4r8seqreadv4r8classzone
> Zone normal velocity 11358.492 17996.733 12695.547
> Zone dma32 velocity 8213.852 0.000 6891.421
>
> Please stop making multiple logical changes in a single patch/testing
> unit.
In this case you would end up with two patches
Removal of balance gap -- no major difference measured
Removal of classzone_idx -- removes the lowmem reserve
The first patch on its own would have no useful documentation attached
which is why it was not split out.
> This will make it easier to verify them, and hopefully make it
> also more obvious if individual changes are underdocumented. As it
> stands, it's hard to impossible to verify the implementation when the
> intentions are not fully documented. Performance results can only do
> so much. They are meant to corroborate the model, not replace it.
>
The fair zone policy itself is partially working against the lowmem
reserve idea. The point of the lowmem reserve was to preserve the lower
zones when an upper zone can be used and the fair zone policy breaks
that. The fair zone policy ignores that and it was never reconciled. The
dirty page distribution does a different interleaving again and was never
reconciled with the fair zone policy or lowmem reserves. kswapd itself was
not using the classzone_idx it actually woken for although in this case
it may not matter. The end result is that the model is fairly inconsistent
which makes comparison against it a difficult exercise at best. About all
that was left was that from a performance perspective that the fair zone
allocation policy is not doing the right thing for streaming workloads.
> And again, if you change the way zone fairness works, please always
> include the zone velocity numbers or allocation numbers to show that
> your throughput improvements don't just come from completely wrecking
> fairness - or in this case from disabling an entire zone.
The fair zone policy is preserved until such time as the workload is
continually streaming data in and reclaiming out. The original fair zone
allocation policy patch (81c0a2bb515fd4daae8cab64352877480792b515) did not
describe what workload it measurably benefitted. It noted that pages can
get activated and live longer than they should which is completely true
but did not document why that mattered for streaming workloads or notice
that performance for those workloads got completely shot.
There is a concern that the pages on the lower zone potentially get preserved
forever. However, the interleaving from the fair zone policy would reach
the low watermark again and pages up to the high watermark would still
get rotated and reclaimed so it did not seem like it would be an issue.
--
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>