From: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"Michal Hocko" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
"Roman Gushchin" <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
"Muchun Song" <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
"Ivan Babrou" <ivan@cloudflare.com>, "Tejun Heo" <tj@kernel.org>,
"Michal Koutný" <mkoutny@suse.com>,
"Waiman Long" <longman@redhat.com>,
kernel-team@cloudflare.com, "Wei Xu" <weixugc@google.com>,
"Greg Thelen" <gthelen@google.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2023 14:19:55 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAJD7tkY9LrWHX3rjYwNnVK9sjtYPJyx6j_Y3DexTXfS9wwr+xA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod5fWDWZDa=WoyOyckvx5ptjmFBMO9sOG0Sk0MgiDX4DSQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:16 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 12, 2023 at 2:06 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Using next-20231009 and a similar 44 core machine with hyperthreading
> > > > > > disabled, I ran 22 instances of netperf in parallel and got the
> > > > > > following numbers from averaging 20 runs:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Base: 33076.5 mbps
> > > > > > Patched: 31410.1 mbps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's about 5% diff. I guess the number of iterations helps reduce
> > > > > > the noise? I am not sure.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please also keep in mind that in this case all netperf instances are
> > > > > > in the same cgroup and at a 4-level depth. I imagine in a practical
> > > > > > setup processes would be a little more spread out, which means less
> > > > > > common ancestors, so less contended atomic operations.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > (Resending the reply as I messed up the last one, was not in plain text)
> > > > >
> > > > > I was curious, so I ran the same testing in a cgroup 2 levels deep
> > > > > (i.e /sys/fs/cgroup/a/b), which is a much more common setup in my
> > > > > experience. Here are the numbers:
> > > > >
> > > > > Base: 40198.0 mbps
> > > > > Patched: 38629.7 mbps
> > > > >
> > > > > The regression is reduced to ~3.9%.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's more interesting is that going from a level 2 cgroup to a level
> > > > > 4 cgroup is already a big hit with or without this patch:
> > > > >
> > > > > Base: 40198.0 -> 33076.5 mbps (~17.7% regression)
> > > > > Patched: 38629.7 -> 31410.1 (~18.7% regression)
> > > > >
> > > > > So going from level 2 to 4 is already a significant regression for
> > > > > other reasons (e.g. hierarchical charging). This patch only makes it
> > > > > marginally worse. This puts the numbers more into perspective imo than
> > > > > comparing values at level 4. What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > This is weird as we are running the experiments on the same machine. I
> > > > will rerun with 2 levels as well. Also can you rerun the page fault
> > > > benchmark as well which was showing 9% regression in your original
> > > > commit message?
> > >
> > > Thanks. I will re-run the page_fault tests, but keep in mind that the
> > > page fault benchmarks in will-it-scale are highly variable. We run
> > > them between kernel versions internally, and I think we ignore any
> > > changes below 10% as the benchmark is naturally noisy.
> > >
> > > I have a couple of runs for page_fault3_scalability showing a 2-3%
> > > improvement with this patch :)
> >
> > I ran the page_fault tests for 10 runs on a machine with 256 cpus in a
> > level 2 cgroup, here are the results (the results in the original
> > commit message are for 384 cpus in a level 4 cgroup):
> >
> > LABEL | MEAN | MEDIAN | STDDEV |
> > ------------------------------+-------------+-------------+-------------
> > page_fault1_per_process_ops | | | |
> > (A) base | 270249.164 | 265437.000 | 13451.836 |
> > (B) patched | 261368.709 | 255725.000 | 13394.767 |
> > | -3.29% | -3.66% | |
> > page_fault1_per_thread_ops | | | |
> > (A) base | 242111.345 | 239737.000 | 10026.031 |
> > (B) patched | 237057.109 | 235305.000 | 9769.687 |
> > | -2.09% | -1.85% | |
> > page_fault1_scalability | | |
> > (A) base | 0.034387 | 0.035168 | 0.0018283 |
> > (B) patched | 0.033988 | 0.034573 | 0.0018056 |
> > | -1.16% | -1.69% | |
> > page_fault2_per_process_ops | | |
> > (A) base | 203561.836 | 203301.000 | 2550.764 |
> > (B) patched | 197195.945 | 197746.000 | 2264.263 |
> > | -3.13% | -2.73% | |
> > page_fault2_per_thread_ops | | |
> > (A) base | 171046.473 | 170776.000 | 1509.679 |
> > (B) patched | 166626.327 | 166406.000 | 768.753 |
> > | -2.58% | -2.56% | |
> > page_fault2_scalability | | |
> > (A) base | 0.054026 | 0.053821 | 0.00062121 |
> > (B) patched | 0.053329 | 0.05306 | 0.00048394 |
> > | -1.29% | -1.41% | |
> > page_fault3_per_process_ops | | |
> > (A) base | 1295807.782 | 1297550.000 | 5907.585 |
> > (B) patched | 1275579.873 | 1273359.000 | 8759.160 |
> > | -1.56% | -1.86% | |
> > page_fault3_per_thread_ops | | |
> > (A) base | 391234.164 | 390860.000 | 1760.720 |
> > (B) patched | 377231.273 | 376369.000 | 1874.971 |
> > | -3.58% | -3.71% | |
> > page_fault3_scalability | | |
> > (A) base | 0.60369 | 0.60072 | 0.0083029 |
> > (B) patched | 0.61733 | 0.61544 | 0.009855 |
> > | +2.26% | +2.45% | |
> >
> > The numbers are much better. I can modify the commit log to include
> > the testing in the replies instead of what's currently there if this
> > helps (22 netperf instances on 44 cpus and will-it-scale page_fault on
> > 256 cpus -- all in a level 2 cgroup).
>
> Yes this looks better. I think we should also ask intel perf and
> phoronix folks to run their benchmarks as well (but no need to block
> on them).
Anything I need to do for this to happen? (I thought such testing is
already done on linux-next)
Also, any further comments on the patch (or the series in general)? If
not, I can send a new commit message for this patch in-place.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-12 21:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-10 3:21 [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: memcg: subtree stats flushing and thresholds Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:21 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: memcg: change flush_next_time to flush_last_time Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:21 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: memcg: move vmstats structs definition above flushing code Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:21 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:24 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 20:45 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-10 21:02 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 22:21 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-11 0:36 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-11 1:48 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-11 12:45 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-12 3:13 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 8:01 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 8:04 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 13:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-12 23:28 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-13 2:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2023-10-13 2:38 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 13:35 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-12 15:10 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 21:05 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-12 21:16 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-12 21:19 ` Yosry Ahmed [this message]
2023-10-12 21:38 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-12 22:23 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-14 23:08 ` Andrew Morton
2023-10-16 18:42 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-17 23:52 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-18 8:22 ` Oliver Sang
2023-10-18 8:54 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-20 16:17 ` kernel test robot
2023-10-20 17:23 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-20 17:42 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-23 1:25 ` Feng Tang
2023-10-23 18:25 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-24 2:13 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-24 6:56 ` Oliver Sang
2023-10-24 7:14 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-25 6:09 ` Oliver Sang
2023-10-25 6:22 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-25 17:06 ` Shakeel Butt
2023-10-25 18:36 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:21 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: workingset: move the stats flush into workingset_test_recent() Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 3:21 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] mm: memcg: restore subtree stats flushing Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-10 16:48 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: memcg: subtree stats flushing and thresholds domenico cerasuolo
2023-10-10 19:01 ` Yosry Ahmed
2023-10-18 21:12 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAJD7tkY9LrWHX3rjYwNnVK9sjtYPJyx6j_Y3DexTXfS9wwr+xA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=yosryahmed@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gthelen@google.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=ivan@cloudflare.com \
--cc=kernel-team@cloudflare.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=weixugc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).