From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751525AbeEBORZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2018 10:17:25 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:59292 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750999AbeEBORV (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 May 2018 10:17:21 -0400 From: Punit Agrawal To: Laurent Dufour Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, Daniel Jordan , David Rientjes , Jerome Glisse , Ganesh Mahendran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults References: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 15:17:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Laurent Dufour's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:33:06 +0200") Message-ID: <87bmdynnv4.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Laurent, One query below - Laurent Dufour writes: [...] > > Ebizzy: > ------- > The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the > higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent > result I repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result. The > number is the record processes per second, the higher is the best. > > BASE SPF delta > 16 CPUs x86 VM 12405.52 91104.52 634.39% > 80 CPUs P8 node 37880.01 76201.05 101.16% How do you measure the number of records processed? Is there a specific version of ebizzy that reports this? I couldn't find a way to get this information with the ebizzy that's included in ltp. > > Here are the performance counter read during a run on a 16 CPUs x86 VM: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 860074 faults > 856866 spf > 285 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 1506 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 73 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > And the ones captured during a run on a 80 CPUs Power node: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 722695 faults > 699402 spf > 16048 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 6838 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 277 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > In ebizzy's case most of the page fault were handled in a speculative way, > leading the ebizzy performance boost. A trial run showed increased fault handling when SPF is enabled on an 8-core ARM64 system running 4.17-rc3. I am using a port of your x86 patch to enable spf on arm64. SPF --- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 1,322,736 faults 1,299,241 software/config=11/ 10.005348034 seconds time elapsed No SPF ----- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 708,916 faults 0 software/config=11/ 10.005807432 seconds time elapsed Thanks, Punit [...] From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f72.google.com (mail-oi0-f72.google.com [209.85.218.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AA4B6B0005 for ; Wed, 2 May 2018 10:17:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-oi0-f72.google.com with SMTP id x134-v6so8815526oif.19 for ; Wed, 02 May 2018 07:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com. [217.140.101.70]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 93-v6si4274755otd.5.2018.05.02.07.17.22 for ; Wed, 02 May 2018 07:17:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults References: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 15:17:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Laurent Dufour's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:33:06 +0200") Message-ID: <87bmdynnv4.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Laurent Dufour Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, Daniel Jordan , David Rientjes , Jerome Glisse , Ganesh Mahendran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists., ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Hi Laurent, One query below - Laurent Dufour writes: [...] > > Ebizzy: > ------- > The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the > higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent > result I repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result. The > number is the record processes per second, the higher is the best. > > BASE SPF delta > 16 CPUs x86 VM 12405.52 91104.52 634.39% > 80 CPUs P8 node 37880.01 76201.05 101.16% How do you measure the number of records processed? Is there a specific version of ebizzy that reports this? I couldn't find a way to get this information with the ebizzy that's included in ltp. > > Here are the performance counter read during a run on a 16 CPUs x86 VM: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 860074 faults > 856866 spf > 285 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 1506 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 73 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > And the ones captured during a run on a 80 CPUs Power node: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 722695 faults > 699402 spf > 16048 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 6838 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 277 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > In ebizzy's case most of the page fault were handled in a speculative way, > leading the ebizzy performance boost. A trial run showed increased fault handling when SPF is enabled on an 8-core ARM64 system running 4.17-rc3. I am using a port of your x86 patch to enable spf on arm64. SPF --- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 1,322,736 faults 1,299,241 software/config=11/ 10.005348034 seconds time elapsed No SPF ----- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 708,916 faults 0 software/config=11/ 10.005807432 seconds time elapsed Thanks, Punit [...] From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40bgMw0BxlzF2T2 for ; Thu, 3 May 2018 00:17:24 +1000 (AEST) From: Punit Agrawal To: Laurent Dufour Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mhocko@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, ak@linux.intel.com, dave@stgolabs.net, jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox , benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , hpa@zytor.com, Will Deacon , Sergey Senozhatsky , Andrea Arcangeli , Alexei Starovoitov , kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com, Daniel Jordan , David Rientjes , Jerome Glisse , Ganesh Mahendran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen , linuxppc-dev@lists. ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/25] Speculative page faults References: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 02 May 2018 15:17:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1523975611-15978-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Laurent Dufour's message of "Tue, 17 Apr 2018 16:33:06 +0200") Message-ID: <87bmdynnv4.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Laurent, One query below - Laurent Dufour writes: [...] > > Ebizzy: > ------- > The test is counting the number of records per second it can manage, the > higher is the best. I run it like this 'ebizzy -mTRp'. To get consistent > result I repeated the test 100 times and measure the average result. The > number is the record processes per second, the higher is the best. > > BASE SPF delta > 16 CPUs x86 VM 12405.52 91104.52 634.39% > 80 CPUs P8 node 37880.01 76201.05 101.16% How do you measure the number of records processed? Is there a specific version of ebizzy that reports this? I couldn't find a way to get this information with the ebizzy that's included in ltp. > > Here are the performance counter read during a run on a 16 CPUs x86 VM: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 860074 faults > 856866 spf > 285 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 1506 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 73 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > And the ones captured during a run on a 80 CPUs Power node: > Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -mRTp': > 722695 faults > 699402 spf > 16048 pagefault:spf_pte_lock > 6838 pagefault:spf_vma_changed > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_noanon > 277 pagefault:spf_vma_notsup > 0 pagefault:spf_vma_access > 0 pagefault:spf_pmd_changed > > In ebizzy's case most of the page fault were handled in a speculative way, > leading the ebizzy performance boost. A trial run showed increased fault handling when SPF is enabled on an 8-core ARM64 system running 4.17-rc3. I am using a port of your x86 patch to enable spf on arm64. SPF --- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 1,322,736 faults 1,299,241 software/config=11/ 10.005348034 seconds time elapsed No SPF ----- Performance counter stats for './ebizzy -vvvmTRp': 708,916 faults 0 software/config=11/ 10.005807432 seconds time elapsed Thanks, Punit [...]