From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Chris Goldsworthy <cgoldswo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@kernel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
John Dias <joaodias@google.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mm] 8cc621d2f4: fio.write_iops -21.8% regression
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 08:16:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YK0Us01mBTRWOQIw@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45f761de51d514f77cc48214846c5f8f@codeaurora.org>
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:37:49AM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> This looks good to me, I just have some minor feedback.
>
> Thanks,
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the review. Please see below.
>
> Chris.
>
> On 2021-05-20 11:36, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:31:44PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Greeting,
> > >
> > > FYI, we noticed a -21.8% regression of fio.write_iops due to commit:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: 8cc621d2f45ddd3dc664024a647ee7adf48d79a5 ("mm: fs:
> > > invalidate BH LRU during page migration")
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > >
> > >
> > > in testcase: fio-basic
> > > on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU
> > > @ 2.10GHz with 256G memory
> > > with following parameters:
> > >
> > > disk: 2pmem
> > > fs: ext4
> > > runtime: 200s
> > > nr_task: 50%
> > > time_based: tb
> > > rw: randwrite
> > > bs: 4k
> > > ioengine: libaio
> > > test_size: 200G
> > > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > > ucode: 0x5003006
> > >
> > > test-description: Fio is a tool that will spawn a number of threads
> > > or processes doing a particular type of I/O action as specified by
> > > the user.
> > > test-url: https://github.com/axboe/fio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Details are as below:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > >
> > >
> > > To reproduce:
> > >
> > > git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> > > cd lkp-tests
> > > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is
> > > attached in this email
> > > bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml
> > > file for lkp run
> > > bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to insall the lkp-test in my machine by following above guide
> > but failed
> > due to package problems(I guess it's my problem since I use something
> > particular
> > environement). However, I guess it comes from increased miss ratio of
> > bh_lrus
> > since the patch caused more frequent invalidation of the bh_lrus calls
> > compared
> > to old. For example, lru_add_drain could be called from several hot
> > places(e.g.,
> > unmap and pagevec_release from several path) and it could keeps
> > invalidating
> > bh_lrus.
> >
> > IMO, we should move the overhead from such hot path to cold one. How
> > about this?
> >
> > From ebf4ede1cf32fb14d85f0015a3693cb8e1b8dbfe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 11:17:56 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] invalidate bh_lrus only at lru_add_drain_all
> >
> > Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > mm/swap.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index dfb48cf9c2c9..d6168449e28c 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -642,7 +642,6 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu)
> > pagevec_lru_move_fn(pvec, lru_lazyfree_fn);
> >
> > activate_page_drain(cpu);
> > - invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -725,6 +724,17 @@ void lru_add_drain(void)
> > local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > }
> >
> > +void lru_and_bh_lrus_drain(void)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + lru_add_drain_cpu(cpu);
> > + local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Nit: drop int cpu?
Do you mean to suggest using smp_processor_id at both places
instead of local varaible? Since the invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu
is called out of the lru_pvecs.lock, I wanted to express
the draining happens at the same CPU via storing the CPU.
>
> > void lru_add_drain_cpu_zone(struct zone *zone)
> > {
> > local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > @@ -739,7 +749,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct,
> > lru_add_drain_work);
> >
> > static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(struct work_struct *dummy)
> > {
> > - lru_add_drain();
> > + lru_and_bh_lrus_drain();
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -881,6 +891,7 @@ void lru_cache_disable(void)
> > __lru_add_drain_all(true);
> > #else
> > lru_add_drain();
> > + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> > #endif
> > }
>
> Can't we replace the call to lru_add_drain() and
> invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(smp_processor_id()) with a single call to
> lru_and_bh_lrus_drain()?
Good idea.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-05-25 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-05-20 8:31 [mm] 8cc621d2f4: fio.write_iops -21.8% regression kernel test robot
2021-05-20 18:36 ` Minchan Kim
2021-05-24 17:37 ` Chris Goldsworthy
2021-05-25 15:16 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2021-05-25 16:39 ` Minchan Kim
2021-05-25 16:57 ` Chris Goldsworthy
2021-09-03 7:11 ` [LKP] " Xing, Zhengjun
2021-09-07 16:55 ` Minchan Kim
2021-09-07 18:46 ` Chris Goldsworthy
2021-09-07 21:27 ` Minchan Kim
2021-05-25 16:53 ` Chris Goldsworthy
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=YK0Us01mBTRWOQIw@google.com \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=cgoldswo@codeaurora.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=joaodias@google.com \
--cc=labbott@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=surenb@google.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=zhengjun.xing@intel.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).