From: Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Janghyuck Kim <email@example.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Will Deacon <email@example.com>,
Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Palmer Dabbelt <email@example.com>,
Atish Patra <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Gavin Shan <email@example.com>,
Zhengyuan Liu <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: support fastpath if NUMA is enabled with numa off
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 13:40:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YMtC1JfSKbx421sX@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 08:55:44PM +0900, Janghyuck Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 06:32:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:37:41PM +0900, Janghyuck Kim wrote:
> > > Architecture might support fake node when CONFIG_NUMA is enabled but any
> > > node settings were supported by ACPI or device tree. In this case,
> > > getting memory policy during memory allocation path is meaningless.
> > >
> > > Moreover, performance degradation was observed in the minor page fault
> > > test, which is provided by (https://protect2.fireeye.com/v1/url?k=c81407ae-978f3ea4-c8158ce1-0cc47a31384a-10187d5ead74c318&q=1&e=cbc91c9b-80e1-4ca0-b51a-9f79fad5b0c1&u=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.org%2Flkml%2F2006%2F8%2F29%2F294).
> > > Average faults/sec of enabling NUMA with fake node was 5~6 % worse than
> > > disabling NUMA. To reduce this performance regression, fastpath is
> > > introduced. fastpath can skip the memory policy checking if NUMA is
> > > enabled but it uses fake node. If architecture doesn't support fake
> > > node, fastpath affects nothing for memory allocation path.
> > This patch doesn't even apply to the current kernel, but putting that
> > aside, what's the expensive part of the current code? That is,
> > comparing performance stats between this numa_off enabled and numa_off
> > disabled, where do you see taking a lot of time?
> mempolicy related code that I skipped by this patch took a short time,
> taking only a few tens of nanoseconds that difficult to measure by
> sched_clock's degree of precision. But it can be affect the minor page
> fault test with large buffer size, because one page fault handling takes
> several ms. As I replied in previous mail, performance regression has
> been reduced from 5~6% to 2~3%.
I'm not proposing you use sched_clock. Try perf.
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-17 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20210616081628epcas2p3f919d10029cbe01efa1212a5b861af38@epcas2p3.samsung.com>
2021-06-16 8:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: support fastpath if NUMA is enabled with numa off Janghyuck Kim
[not found] ` <CGME20210616081632epcas2p46436c362f3d97c9c1fb09dbb11d64ad7@epcas2p4.samsung.com>
2021-06-16 8:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: numa: support numa_off_fastpath Janghyuck Kim
2021-06-16 17:10 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: support fastpath if NUMA is enabled with numa off Vlastimil Babka
2021-06-17 11:42 ` Janghyuck Kim
2021-06-16 17:32 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-06-17 11:55 ` Janghyuck Kim
2021-06-17 12:40 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).