All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:56:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2e172b1-fb2a-57a0-0074-a07a61693e6c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489568404-7817-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com>

On 03/15/2017 09:59 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> For regular processes, the time taken in its exit() path to free its
> used memory is not a problem. But there are heavy ones that consume
> several Terabytes memory and the time taken to free its memory in its
> exit() path could last more than ten minutes if THP is not used.
> 
> As Dave Hansen explained why do this in kernel:
> "
> One of the places we saw this happen was when an app crashed and was
> exit()'ing under duress without cleaning up nicely.  The time that it
> takes to unmap a few TB of 4k pages is pretty excessive.
> "

Yeah, it would be nice to improve such cases.

> To optimize this use case, a parallel free method is proposed here and
> it is based on the current gather batch free(the following description
> is taken from patch 2/5's changelog).
> 
> The current gather batch free works like this:
> For each struct mmu_gather *tlb, there is a static buffer to store those
> to-be-freed page pointers. The size is MMU_GATHER_BUNDLE, which is
> defined to be 8. So if a tlb tear down doesn't free more than 8 pages,
> that is all we need. If 8+ pages are to be freed, new pages will need
> to be allocated to store those to-be-freed page pointers.
> 
> The structure used to describe the saved page pointers is called
> struct mmu_gather_batch and tlb->local is of this type. tlb->local is
> different than other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) in that the page
> pointer array used by tlb->local points to the previouslly described
> static buffer while the other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) page pointer
> array points to the dynamically allocated pages.
> 
> These batches will form a singly linked list, starting from &tlb->local.
> 
> tlb->local.pages  => tlb->pages(8 pointers)
>       \|/
>       next => batch1->pages => about 510 pointers
>                 \|/
>                 next => batch2->pages => about 510 pointers
>                           \|/
>                           next => batch3->pages => about 510 pointers
>                                     ... ...
> 
> The proposed parallel free did this: if the process has many pages to be
> freed, accumulate them in these struct mmu_gather_batch(es) one after
> another till 256K pages are accumulated. Then take this singly linked
> list starting from tlb->local.next off struct mmu_gather *tlb and free
> them in a worker thread. The main thread can return to continue zap
> other pages(after freeing pages pointed by tlb->local.pages).
> 
> A test program that did a single malloc() of 320G memory is used to see
> how useful the proposed parallel free solution is, the time calculated
> is for the free() call. Test machine is a Haswell EX which has
> 4nodes/72cores/144threads with 512G memory. All tests are done with THP
> disabled.
> 
> kernel                             time
> v4.10                              10.8s  ±2.8%
> this patch(with default setting)   5.795s ±5.8%

I wonder if the difference would be larger if the parallelism was done
on a higher level, something around unmap_page_range(). IIUC the current
approach still leaves a lot of work to a single thread, right?
I assume it would be more complicated, but doable as we already have the
OOM reaper doing unmaps parallel to other activity? Has that been
considered?

Thanks, Vlastimil

> 
> Patch 3/5 introduced a dedicated workqueue for the free workers and
> here are more results when setting different values for max_active of
> this workqueue:
> 
> max_active:   time
> 1             8.9s   ±0.5%
> 2             5.65s  ±5.5%
> 4             4.84s  ±0.16%
> 8             4.77s  ±0.97%
> 16            4.85s  ±0.77%
> 32            6.21s  ±0.46%
> 
> Comments are welcome and appreciated.
> 
> v2 changes: Nothing major, only minor ones.
>  - rebased on top of v4.11-rc2-mmotm-2017-03-14-15-41;
>  - use list_add_tail instead of list_add to add worker to tlb's worker
>    list so that when doing flush, the first queued worker gets flushed
>    first(based on the comsumption that the first queued worker has a
>    better chance of finishing its job than those later queued workers);
>  - use bool instead of int for variable free_batch_page in function
>    tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches;
>  - style change according to ./scripts/checkpatch;
>  - reword some of the changelogs to make it more readable.
> 
> v1 is here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/24/245
> 
> Aaron Lu (5):
>   mm: add tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches
>   mm: parallel free pages
>   mm: use a dedicated workqueue for the free workers
>   mm: add force_free_pages in zap_pte_range
>   mm: add debugfs interface for parallel free tuning
> 
>  include/asm-generic/tlb.h |  15 ++---
>  mm/memory.c               | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
To: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Ying Huang <ying.huang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:56:02 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c2e172b1-fb2a-57a0-0074-a07a61693e6c@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1489568404-7817-1-git-send-email-aaron.lu@intel.com>

On 03/15/2017 09:59 AM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> For regular processes, the time taken in its exit() path to free its
> used memory is not a problem. But there are heavy ones that consume
> several Terabytes memory and the time taken to free its memory in its
> exit() path could last more than ten minutes if THP is not used.
> 
> As Dave Hansen explained why do this in kernel:
> "
> One of the places we saw this happen was when an app crashed and was
> exit()'ing under duress without cleaning up nicely.  The time that it
> takes to unmap a few TB of 4k pages is pretty excessive.
> "

Yeah, it would be nice to improve such cases.

> To optimize this use case, a parallel free method is proposed here and
> it is based on the current gather batch free(the following description
> is taken from patch 2/5's changelog).
> 
> The current gather batch free works like this:
> For each struct mmu_gather *tlb, there is a static buffer to store those
> to-be-freed page pointers. The size is MMU_GATHER_BUNDLE, which is
> defined to be 8. So if a tlb tear down doesn't free more than 8 pages,
> that is all we need. If 8+ pages are to be freed, new pages will need
> to be allocated to store those to-be-freed page pointers.
> 
> The structure used to describe the saved page pointers is called
> struct mmu_gather_batch and tlb->local is of this type. tlb->local is
> different than other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) in that the page
> pointer array used by tlb->local points to the previouslly described
> static buffer while the other struct mmu_gather_batch(es) page pointer
> array points to the dynamically allocated pages.
> 
> These batches will form a singly linked list, starting from &tlb->local.
> 
> tlb->local.pages  => tlb->pages(8 pointers)
>       \|/
>       next => batch1->pages => about 510 pointers
>                 \|/
>                 next => batch2->pages => about 510 pointers
>                           \|/
>                           next => batch3->pages => about 510 pointers
>                                     ... ...
> 
> The proposed parallel free did this: if the process has many pages to be
> freed, accumulate them in these struct mmu_gather_batch(es) one after
> another till 256K pages are accumulated. Then take this singly linked
> list starting from tlb->local.next off struct mmu_gather *tlb and free
> them in a worker thread. The main thread can return to continue zap
> other pages(after freeing pages pointed by tlb->local.pages).
> 
> A test program that did a single malloc() of 320G memory is used to see
> how useful the proposed parallel free solution is, the time calculated
> is for the free() call. Test machine is a Haswell EX which has
> 4nodes/72cores/144threads with 512G memory. All tests are done with THP
> disabled.
> 
> kernel                             time
> v4.10                              10.8s  A+-2.8%
> this patch(with default setting)   5.795s A+-5.8%

I wonder if the difference would be larger if the parallelism was done
on a higher level, something around unmap_page_range(). IIUC the current
approach still leaves a lot of work to a single thread, right?
I assume it would be more complicated, but doable as we already have the
OOM reaper doing unmaps parallel to other activity? Has that been
considered?

Thanks, Vlastimil

> 
> Patch 3/5 introduced a dedicated workqueue for the free workers and
> here are more results when setting different values for max_active of
> this workqueue:
> 
> max_active:   time
> 1             8.9s   A+-0.5%
> 2             5.65s  A+-5.5%
> 4             4.84s  A+-0.16%
> 8             4.77s  A+-0.97%
> 16            4.85s  A+-0.77%
> 32            6.21s  A+-0.46%
> 
> Comments are welcome and appreciated.
> 
> v2 changes: Nothing major, only minor ones.
>  - rebased on top of v4.11-rc2-mmotm-2017-03-14-15-41;
>  - use list_add_tail instead of list_add to add worker to tlb's worker
>    list so that when doing flush, the first queued worker gets flushed
>    first(based on the comsumption that the first queued worker has a
>    better chance of finishing its job than those later queued workers);
>  - use bool instead of int for variable free_batch_page in function
>    tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches;
>  - style change according to ./scripts/checkpatch;
>  - reword some of the changelogs to make it more readable.
> 
> v1 is here:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/24/245
> 
> Aaron Lu (5):
>   mm: add tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches
>   mm: parallel free pages
>   mm: use a dedicated workqueue for the free workers
>   mm: add force_free_pages in zap_pte_range
>   mm: add debugfs interface for parallel free tuning
> 
>  include/asm-generic/tlb.h |  15 ++---
>  mm/memory.c               | 141 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>  2 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> 

--
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>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-03-15 14:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-03-15  8:59 [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  8:59 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: add tlb_flush_mmu_free_batches Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: parallel free pages Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:42   ` Hillf Danton
2017-03-15  9:42     ` Hillf Danton
2017-03-15 11:54     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 11:54       ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: use a dedicated workqueue for the free workers Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22  6:33   ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22  6:33     ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22  8:41     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22  8:41       ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22  8:55       ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22  8:55         ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-22 13:43         ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22 13:43           ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-23  5:53           ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-23  5:53             ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-23 15:38       ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-23 15:38         ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-24 12:37         ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-24 12:37           ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: add force_free_pages in zap_pte_range Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] mm: add debugfs interface for parallel free tuning Aaron Lu
2017-03-15  9:00   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 14:18 ` [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 14:18   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 15:44   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 15:44     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 16:28     ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 16:28       ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-15 21:38       ` Tim Chen
2017-03-15 21:38         ` Tim Chen
2017-03-16  9:07         ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-16  9:07           ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-16 18:36           ` Tim Chen
2017-03-16 18:36             ` Tim Chen
2017-03-17  7:47             ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17  7:47               ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17  8:07               ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-17  8:07                 ` Minchan Kim
2017-03-17 12:33               ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17 12:33                 ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17 12:59                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 12:59                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 13:16                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 13:16                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 12:53               ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 12:53                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-03-17 13:05                 ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-17 13:05                   ` Michal Hocko
2017-03-21 14:54           ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-21 14:54             ` Dave Hansen
2017-03-22  8:02             ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-22  8:02               ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-24  7:04             ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-24  7:04               ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-21 15:18           ` Tim Chen
2017-03-21 15:18             ` Tim Chen
2017-03-16  6:54       ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16  6:54         ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16  7:34       ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16  7:34         ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 13:51         ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 13:51           ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 14:14           ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 14:14             ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 14:56 ` Vlastimil Babka [this message]
2017-03-15 14:56   ` Vlastimil Babka
2017-03-15 15:50   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-15 15:50     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17  3:10   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17  3:10     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-16 19:38 ` Alex Thorlton
2017-03-16 19:38   ` Alex Thorlton
2017-03-17  2:21   ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-17  2:21     ` Aaron Lu
2017-03-20 19:15     ` Alex Thorlton
2017-03-20 19:15       ` Alex Thorlton

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=c2e172b1-fb2a-57a0-0074-a07a61693e6c@suse.cz \
    --to=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=aaron.lu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=tim.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@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 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.