All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>, Tariq Toukan <tariqt@mellanox.com>
Cc: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@fb.com>,
	Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@mellanox.com>,
	Eran Ben Elisha <eranbe@mellanox.com>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Page allocator bottleneck
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 18:33:20 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <082e7901-7842-e9d9-221d-45322da0fcff@mellanox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170918074404.GD4107@intel.com>



On 18/09/2017 10:44 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:34:47PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote:
>>>
>>> It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter.
>>> But maybe we should also think of changing the default fraction guaranteed
>>> to the PCP, so that unaware admins of networking servers would also benefit.
>>
>> I collected some performance data with will-it-scale/page_fault1 process
>> mode on different machines with different pcp->batch sizes, starting
>> from the default 31(calculated by zone_batchsize(), 31 is the standard
>> value for any zone that has more than 1/2MiB memory), then incremented
>> by 31 upwards till 527. PCP's upper limit is 6*batch.
>>
>> An image is plotted and attached: batch_full.png(full here means the
>> number of process started equals to CPU number).
> 
> To be clear: X-axis is the value of batch size(31, 62, 93, ..., 527),
> Y-axis is the value of per_process_ops, generated by will-it-scale,
> higher is better.
> 
>>
>>  From the image:
>> - For EX machines, they all see throughput increase with increased batch
>>    size and peaked at around batch_size=310, then fall;
>> - For EP machines, Haswell-EP and Broadwell-EP also see throughput
>>    increase with increased batch size and peaked at batch_size=279, then
>>    fall, batch_size=310 also delivers pretty good result. Skylake-EP is
>>    quite different in that it doesn't see any obvious throughput increase
>>    after batch_size=93, though the trend is still increasing, but in a very
>>    small way and finally peaked at batch_size=403, then fall.
>>    Ivybridge EP behaves much like desktop ones.
>> - For Desktop machines, they do not see any obvious changes with
>>    increased batch_size.
>>
>> So the default batch size(31) doesn't deliver good enough result, we
>> probbaly should change the default value.

Thanks Aaron for sharing your experiment results.
That's a good analysis of the effect of the batch value.
I agree with your conclusion.

 From networking perspective, we should reconsider the defaults to be 
able to reach the increasing NICs linerates.
Not only for pcp->batch, but also for pcp->high.

Regards,
Tariq

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-18 15:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-09-14 16:49 Page allocator bottleneck Tariq Toukan
2017-09-14 16:49 ` Tariq Toukan
2017-09-14 20:19 ` Andi Kleen
2017-09-14 20:19   ` Andi Kleen
2017-09-17 15:43   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-09-15  7:28 ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2017-09-17 16:16   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-09-18  7:34     ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-18  7:44       ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-18 15:33         ` Tariq Toukan [this message]
2017-09-19  7:23           ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-19  7:23             ` Aaron Lu
2017-09-15 10:23 ` Mel Gorman
2017-09-18  9:16   ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-02 17:21     ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-02 17:21       ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-03 13:40       ` Mel Gorman
2017-11-08  5:42         ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-08  5:42           ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-08  9:35           ` Mel Gorman
2017-11-09  3:51             ` Figo.zhang
2017-11-09  5:06             ` Tariq Toukan
2017-11-09  5:21             ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2017-11-09  5:21               ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2018-04-21  8:15       ` Aaron Lu
2018-04-22 16:43         ` Tariq Toukan
2018-04-23  8:54           ` Tariq Toukan
2018-04-23  8:54             ` Tariq Toukan
2018-04-23 13:10             ` Aaron Lu
2018-04-27  8:45               ` Aaron Lu
2018-05-02 13:38                 ` Tariq Toukan

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=082e7901-7842-e9d9-221d-45322da0fcff@mellanox.com \
    --to=tariqt@mellanox.com \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=ast@fb.com \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=eranbe@mellanox.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=saeedm@mellanox.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.