* Re: [PATCH 1/3] fs/superblock: Unregister sb shrinker before ->kill_sb()
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
@ 2014-05-22 15:52 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2014-05-22 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton
Cc: Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen, Dave Chinner,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Linux Kernel, Linux-MM,
Linux-FSDevel
On 05/22/2014 05:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
>
> We will like to unregister the sb shrinker before ->kill_sb().
> This will allow cached objects to be counted without call to
> grab_super_passive() to update ref count on sb. We want
> to avoid locking during memory reclamation especially when
> we are skipping the memory reclaim when we are out of
> cached objects.
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
--
All rights reversed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1400749779-24879-3-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>]
* Re: [PATCH 2/3] fs/superblock: Avoid locking counting inodes and dentries before reclaiming them
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-3-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
@ 2014-05-22 15:59 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2014-05-22 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton
Cc: Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen, Dave Chinner,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Linux Kernel, Linux-MM,
Linux-FSDevel
On 05/22/2014 05:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
>
> We remove the call to grab_super_passive in call to super_cache_count.
> This becomes a scalability bottleneck as multiple threads are trying to do
> memory reclamation, e.g. when we are doing large amount of file read and
> page cache is under pressure. The cached objects quickly got reclaimed
> down to 0 and we are aborting the cache_scan() reclaim. But counting
> creates a log jam acquiring the sb_lock.
> Signed-off-by: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
--
All rights reversed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <1400749779-24879-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>]
* Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: vmscan: Use proportional scanning during direct reclaim and full scan at DEF_PRIORITY
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
@ 2014-05-22 16:04 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2014-05-22 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton
Cc: Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen, Dave Chinner,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Linux Kernel, Linux-MM,
Linux-FSDevel
On 05/22/2014 05:09 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Commit "mm: vmscan: obey proportional scanning requirements for kswapd"
> ensured that file/anon lists were scanned proportionally for reclaim from
> kswapd but ignored it for direct reclaim. The intent was to minimse direct
> reclaim latency but Yuanhan Liu pointer out that it substitutes one long
> stall for many small stalls and distorts aging for normal workloads like
> streaming readers/writers. Hugh Dickins pointed out that a side-effect of
> the same commit was that when one LRU list dropped to zero that the entirety
> of the other list was shrunk leading to excessive reclaim in memcgs.
> This patch scans the file/anon lists proportionally for direct reclaim
> to similarly age page whether reclaimed by kswapd or direct reclaim but
> takes care to abort reclaim if one LRU drops to zero after reclaiming the
> requested number of pages.
>
> Note that there are fewer allocation stalls even though the amount
> of direct reclaim scanning is very approximately the same.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
--
All rights reversed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
[not found] <1400749779-24879-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
@ 2014-05-22 16:14 ` Yuanhan Liu
2014-05-22 16:30 ` Mel Gorman
2014-05-22 17:22 ` Tim Chen
2014-05-26 21:44 ` Hugh Dickins
5 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Yuanhan Liu @ 2014-05-22 16:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman
Cc: Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen,
Dave Chinner, Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel,
Mel Gorman, Linux Kernel, Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
> The last patch adjusts proportional reclaim. Yuanhan Liu, can you retest
> the vm scalability test cases on a larger machine? Hugh, does this work
> for you on the memcg test cases?
Sure, and here is the result. I applied these 3 patches on v3.15-rc6,
and head commit is 60c10afd. e82e0561 is the old commit that introduced
the regression. The testserver has 512G memory and 120 CPU.
It's a simple result; if you need more data, I can gather them and send
it to you tomorrow:
e82e0561 v3.15-rc6 60c10afd
----------------------------------------
18560785 12232122 38868453
-34% +109
As you can see, the performance is back, and it is way much better ;)
--yliu
>
> Based on ext4, I get the following results but unfortunately my larger test
> machines are all unavailable so this is based on a relatively small machine.
>
> postmark
> 3.15.0-rc5 3.15.0-rc5
> vanilla proportion-v1r4
> Ops/sec Transactions 21.00 ( 0.00%) 25.00 ( 19.05%)
> Ops/sec FilesCreate 39.00 ( 0.00%) 45.00 ( 15.38%)
> Ops/sec CreateTransact 10.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 20.00%)
> Ops/sec FilesDeleted 6202.00 ( 0.00%) 6202.00 ( 0.00%)
> Ops/sec DeleteTransact 11.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 9.09%)
> Ops/sec DataRead/MB 25.97 ( 0.00%) 30.02 ( 15.59%)
> Ops/sec DataWrite/MB 49.99 ( 0.00%) 57.78 ( 15.58%)
>
> ffsb (mail server simulator)
> 3.15.0-rc5 3.15.0-rc5
> vanilla proportion-v1r4
> Ops/sec readall 9402.63 ( 0.00%) 9805.74 ( 4.29%)
> Ops/sec create 4695.45 ( 0.00%) 4781.39 ( 1.83%)
> Ops/sec delete 173.72 ( 0.00%) 177.23 ( 2.02%)
> Ops/sec Transactions 14271.80 ( 0.00%) 14764.37 ( 3.45%)
> Ops/sec Read 37.00 ( 0.00%) 38.50 ( 4.05%)
> Ops/sec Write 18.20 ( 0.00%) 18.50 ( 1.65%)
>
> dd of a large file
> 3.15.0-rc5 3.15.0-rc5
> vanilla proportion-v1r4
> WallTime DownloadTar 75.00 ( 0.00%) 61.00 ( 18.67%)
> WallTime DD 423.00 ( 0.00%) 401.00 ( 5.20%)
> WallTime Delete 2.00 ( 0.00%) 5.00 (-150.00%)
>
> stutter (times mmap latency during large amounts of IO)
>
> 3.15.0-rc5 3.15.0-rc5
> vanilla proportion-v1r4
> Unit >5ms Delays 80252.0000 ( 0.00%) 81523.0000 ( -1.58%)
> Unit Mmap min 8.2118 ( 0.00%) 8.3206 ( -1.33%)
> Unit Mmap mean 17.4614 ( 0.00%) 17.2868 ( 1.00%)
> Unit Mmap stddev 24.9059 ( 0.00%) 34.6771 (-39.23%)
> Unit Mmap max 2811.6433 ( 0.00%) 2645.1398 ( 5.92%)
> Unit Mmap 90% 20.5098 ( 0.00%) 18.3105 ( 10.72%)
> Unit Mmap 93% 22.9180 ( 0.00%) 20.1751 ( 11.97%)
> Unit Mmap 95% 25.2114 ( 0.00%) 22.4988 ( 10.76%)
> Unit Mmap 99% 46.1430 ( 0.00%) 43.5952 ( 5.52%)
> Unit Ideal Tput 85.2623 ( 0.00%) 78.8906 ( 7.47%)
> Unit Tput min 44.0666 ( 0.00%) 43.9609 ( 0.24%)
> Unit Tput mean 45.5646 ( 0.00%) 45.2009 ( 0.80%)
> Unit Tput stddev 0.9318 ( 0.00%) 1.1084 (-18.95%)
> Unit Tput max 46.7375 ( 0.00%) 46.7539 ( -0.04%)
>
> fs/super.c | 16 +++++++++-------
> mm/vmscan.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.4.5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-22 16:14 ` [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim Yuanhan Liu
@ 2014-05-22 16:30 ` Mel Gorman
2014-05-23 2:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-05-22 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yuanhan Liu
Cc: Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen,
Dave Chinner, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:14:16AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> > first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> > merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> > there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
> > The last patch adjusts proportional reclaim. Yuanhan Liu, can you retest
> > the vm scalability test cases on a larger machine? Hugh, does this work
> > for you on the memcg test cases?
>
> Sure, and here is the result. I applied these 3 patches on v3.15-rc6,
> and head commit is 60c10afd. e82e0561 is the old commit that introduced
> the regression. The testserver has 512G memory and 120 CPU.
>
> It's a simple result; if you need more data, I can gather them and send
> it to you tomorrow:
>
> e82e0561 v3.15-rc6 60c10afd
> ----------------------------------------
> 18560785 12232122 38868453
> -34% +109
>
> As you can see, the performance is back, and it is way much better ;)
>
Thanks a lot for that and the quick response. It is much appreciated.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-22 16:30 ` Mel Gorman
@ 2014-05-23 2:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Yuanhan Liu @ 2014-05-23 2:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman
Cc: Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Tim Chen,
Dave Chinner, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 05:30:51PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:14:16AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:09:36AM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> > > first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> > > merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> > > there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
> > > The last patch adjusts proportional reclaim. Yuanhan Liu, can you retest
> > > the vm scalability test cases on a larger machine? Hugh, does this work
> > > for you on the memcg test cases?
> >
> > Sure, and here is the result. I applied these 3 patches on v3.15-rc6,
> > and head commit is 60c10afd. e82e0561 is the old commit that introduced
> > the regression. The testserver has 512G memory and 120 CPU.
> >
> > It's a simple result; if you need more data, I can gather them and send
> > it to you tomorrow:
> >
> > e82e0561 v3.15-rc6 60c10afd
> > ----------------------------------------
> > 18560785 12232122 38868453
> > -34% +109
> >
> > As you can see, the performance is back, and it is way much better ;)
> >
>
> Thanks a lot for that and the quick response. It is much appreciated.
Welcome! And sorry that I made a silly mistake. Those numbers are right
though, I just setup wrong compare base; I should compare them with
e82e0561's parent, which is 75485363ce85526 at below table.
Here is the detailed results to compensate the mistake I made ;)
Legend:
~XX% - stddev percent (3 runs for each kernel)
[+-]XX% - change percent
75485363ce85526 e82e0561dae9f3ae5a21fc2d3 v3.15-rc6 60c10afd233f3344479d229dc
--------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
35979244 ~ 0% -48.4% 18560785 ~ 0% -66.0% 12235090 ~ 0% +8.0% 38868453 ~ 0% vm-scalability.throughput
28138 ~ 0% +7448.2% 2123943 ~ 0% +2724.5% 794777 ~ 0% +1.6% 28598 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.allocstall
544 ~ 6% -95.2% 26 ~ 0% -96.5% 19 ~21% -6.9% 506 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_isolated_file
12009832 ~11% +368.1% 56215319 ~ 0% +312.9% 49589361 ~ 1% +0.7% 12091235 ~ 5% numa-numastat.node3.numa_foreign
560 ~ 5% -95.7% 24 ~12% -96.9% 17 ~10% -8.7% 511 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_isolated_file
8740137 ~12% +574.0% 58910256 ~ 0% +321.0% 36798827 ~ 0% +21.0% 10578905 ~13% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other
8734988 ~12% +574.4% 58904944 ~ 0% +321.2% 36794158 ~ 0% +21.0% 10572718 ~13% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_miss
1308 ~12% -100.0% 0 ~ 0% -100.0% 0 +23.3% 1612 ~18% proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct_throttle
12294788 ~11% +401.2% 61622745 ~ 0% +332.6% 53190547 ~ 0% -13.2% 10667387 ~ 5% numa-numastat.node1.numa_foreign
576 ~ 6% -91.2% 50 ~22% -94.3% 33 ~20% -18.1% 472 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_isolated_file
12 ~24% +2400.0% 316 ~ 4% +13543.7% 1728 ~ 5% +155.3% 32 ~29% proc-vmstat.compact_stall
572 ~ 2% -96.4% 20 ~18% -97.6% 13 ~11% -17.5% 472 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_isolated_file
3012 ~12% +2388.4% 74959 ~ 0% +254.7% 10685 ~ 1% -45.4% 1646 ~ 1% proc-vmstat.pageoutrun
2312 ~ 3% -94.2% 133 ~ 4% -95.8% 97 ~ 8% -12.6% 2021 ~ 2% proc-vmstat.nr_isolated_file
2575163 ~ 0% +2779.1% 74141888 ~ 0% +958.0% 27244229 ~ 0% -1.3% 2542941 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct_dma32
21916603 ~13% +2519.8% 5.742e+08 ~ 0% +2868.9% 6.507e+08 ~ 0% -16.1% 18397644 ~ 5% proc-vmstat.pgscan_kswapd_normal
53306 ~24% +1077.9% 627895 ~ 0% +2066.2% 1154741 ~ 0% +23.5% 65815 ~24% proc-vmstat.pgscan_kswapd_dma32
2575163 ~ 0% +2778.6% 74129497 ~ 0% +957.8% 27239606 ~ 0% -1.3% 2542353 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_direct_dma32
21907744 ~14% +2520.8% 5.742e+08 ~ 0% +2870.0% 6.507e+08 ~ 0% -16.1% 18386641 ~ 5% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_kswapd_normal
53306 ~24% +1077.7% 627796 ~ 0% +2065.7% 1154436 ~ 0% +23.3% 65731 ~24% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_kswapd_dma32
2967449 ~ 0% +2432.7% 75156011 ~ 0% +869.9% 28781337 ~ 0% -0.7% 2945933 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma32
13081172 ~11% +599.4% 91495653 ~ 0% +337.1% 57180622 ~ 0% +12.1% 14668141 ~13% numa-numastat.node0.other_node
13073426 ~11% +599.8% 91489575 ~ 0% +337.4% 57177129 ~ 0% +12.1% 14660341 ~13% numa-numastat.node0.numa_miss
281 ~23% +1969.4% 5822 ~ 1% +3321.4% 9625 ~ 2% -26.9% 205 ~17% proc-vmstat.kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly
8112109 ~10% +389.4% 39704684 ~ 0% +316.9% 33819005 ~ 0% -7.3% 7523408 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_foreign
46881452 ~ 6% +377.0% 2.236e+08 ~ 0% +355.8% 2.137e+08 ~ 0% -4.0% 44983257 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_miss
46881949 ~ 6% +376.9% 2.236e+08 ~ 0% +355.8% 2.137e+08 ~ 0% -4.0% 44983257 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_foreign
46904868 ~ 6% +376.8% 2.236e+08 ~ 0% +355.6% 2.137e+08 ~ 0% -4.0% 45006469 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_other
7800796 ~12% +363.7% 36173419 ~ 0% +303.7% 31494068 ~ 1% +9.4% 8535720 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_foreign
11737423 ~ 3% +393.4% 57911736 ~ 0% +326.5% 50058077 ~ 1% +1.7% 11936784 ~ 9% numa-numastat.node2.numa_foreign
346095 ~15% +401.6% 1736002 ~11% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C1E-IVB.time
7880367 ~ 7% +375.2% 37445539 ~ 0% +304.3% 31862655 ~ 1% +8.6% 8561430 ~ 8% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_foreign
6757778 ~ 7% +356.3% 30834351 ~ 0% +466.4% 38274496 ~ 1% +0.2% 6769705 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_foreign
11503752 ~18% +292.5% 45154508 ~ 0% +350.3% 51802278 ~ 1% -16.1% 9652380 ~ 6% numa-numastat.node2.other_node
11501132 ~18% +292.5% 45147677 ~ 0% +350.4% 51796449 ~ 1% -16.1% 9647223 ~ 6% numa-numastat.node2.numa_miss
7262807 ~16% +299.9% 29046424 ~ 0% +348.7% 32588398 ~ 1% -11.1% 6457478 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_miss
7377133 ~16% +295.3% 29164332 ~ 0% +343.4% 32710857 ~ 1% -10.8% 6578224 ~ 5% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_other
6820241 ~ 6% +307.8% 27811586 ~ 0% +420.7% 35515296 ~ 1% +7.9% 7355910 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_miss
10839905 ~ 7% +341.4% 47852614 ~ 0% +461.2% 60832325 ~ 0% -5.1% 10287850 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node0.numa_foreign
6935590 ~ 6% +302.6% 27924868 ~ 0% +413.8% 35633492 ~ 1% +7.8% 7476577 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other
10813993 ~ 5% +299.5% 43204929 ~ 0% +420.1% 56246521 ~ 1% -0.6% 10749818 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node1.numa_miss
10819213 ~ 5% +299.3% 43206092 ~ 0% +419.9% 56248990 ~ 1% -0.6% 10757658 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node1.other_node
1140660 ~ 4% +286.4% 4407490 ~ 0% -70.1% 340604 ~ 7% -73.9% 297174 ~10% softirqs.RCU
11492901 ~ 5% +280.8% 43760234 ~ 1% +321.6% 48449737 ~ 0% -13.6% 9925875 ~11% numa-numastat.node3.numa_miss
11500730 ~ 5% +280.5% 43764966 ~ 1% +321.3% 48452382 ~ 0% -13.7% 9928289 ~11% numa-numastat.node3.other_node
7731093 ~ 9% +267.2% 28390454 ~ 1% +295.2% 30551873 ~ 1% -9.4% 7001974 ~11% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_miss
7848292 ~ 9% +263.2% 28506779 ~ 1% +290.8% 30671898 ~ 1% -9.3% 7121295 ~11% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_other
9.19e+08 ~ 0% -67.9% 2.947e+08 ~ 0% -88.0% 1.099e+08 ~ 0% +0.5% 9.24e+08 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_direct_normal
9.192e+08 ~ 0% -67.9% 2.949e+08 ~ 0% -88.0% 1.101e+08 ~ 0% +0.5% 9.242e+08 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct_normal
583 ~48% +119.9% 1283 ~ 4% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C3-IVB.usage
1941 ~15% +94.3% 3772 ~ 2% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C1E-IVB.usage
104150 ~ 8% +122.7% 231910 ~ 1% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C6-IVB.usage
4549 ~20% -44.1% 2544 ~ 3% -14.1% 3907 ~ 2% +27.0% 5777 ~27% numa-meminfo.node2.Mapped
131 ~ 3% +57.2% 207 ~26% +6.2% 139 ~15% -2.5% 128 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_mlock
1154 ~23% -44.4% 641 ~ 3% -14.5% 987 ~ 2% +12.6% 1300 ~13% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_mapped
247 ~ 0% -44.6% 137 ~ 4% -23.5% 189 ~27% -13.1% 215 ~14% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_mlock
7893867 ~ 0% +73.1% 13662239 ~ 0% +131.7% 18293241 ~ 1% -7.2% 7322135 ~ 2% softirqs.TIMER
254 ~ 1% +52.0% 386 ~ 0% +112.9% 541 ~ 0% +33.5% 339 ~ 0% uptime.boot
372323 ~ 0% +52.3% 567042 ~ 0% +31.1% 488079 ~21% -15.6% 314286 ~31% softirqs.SCHED
936 ~ 8% +37.4% 1286 ~ 3% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C1-IVB.usage
31479723 ~ 4% -27.5% 22834553 ~ 2% -34.7% 20560389 ~ 2% +6.6% 33549465 ~ 3% numa-meminfo.node2.MemFree
2323695 ~ 2% +40.4% 3262008 ~ 1% -26.5% 1706990 ~ 2% -48.1% 1205381 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgfault
32342772 ~ 8% -26.3% 23833261 ~ 4% -32.9% 21705887 ~ 0% +9.4% 35376761 ~ 4% numa-meminfo.node0.MemFree
8031011 ~ 8% -25.6% 5975081 ~ 4% -32.1% 5453418 ~ 0% +9.9% 8825066 ~ 4% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_free_pages
7827043 ~ 5% -26.9% 5725077 ~ 2% -34.0% 5166251 ~ 2% +7.0% 8371916 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_free_pages
397512 ~17% +51.9% 603759 ~ 0% +142.6% 964486 ~ 3% +61.6% 642503 ~ 0% meminfo.Active(file)
99417 ~17% +51.8% 150939 ~ 0% +142.5% 241038 ~ 3% +61.7% 160751 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_active_file
31323464 ~ 2% -23.4% 23989124 ~ 4% -31.8% 21369103 ~ 3% +9.2% 34212722 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node3.MemFree
438263 ~15% +47.4% 645991 ~ 0% +130.4% 1009642 ~ 3% +55.8% 682854 ~ 0% meminfo.Active
1.218e+08 ~ 3% -27.1% 88812446 ~ 0% -35.9% 78043140 ~ 1% +8.8% 1.326e+08 ~ 1% vmstat.memory.free
7783606 ~ 2% -22.7% 6013340 ~ 4% -31.0% 5368886 ~ 3% +9.5% 8525297 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_free_pages
9.863e+09 ~ 5% +28.0% 1.263e+10 ~ 0% -100.0% 0 -100.0% 0 cpuidle.C6-IVB.time
30685778 ~ 3% -25.6% 22816822 ~ 0% -33.9% 20284824 ~ 1% +9.6% 33629815 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_free_pages
1.226e+08 ~ 3% -25.6% 91184833 ~ 0% -33.8% 81175485 ~ 0% +9.1% 1.338e+08 ~ 1% meminfo.MemFree
38.36 ~ 1% -22.9% 29.57 ~ 0% -32.2% 26.01 ~ 1% +16.8% 44.81 ~ 0% turbostat.%c6
258220 ~ 2% +27.1% 328306 ~ 0% +312.9% 1066156 ~ 1% +327.3% 1103267 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node0.SReclaimable
7391310 ~ 8% -23.6% 5644229 ~ 3% -30.8% 5113603 ~ 1% +10.9% 8193379 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_free_pages
64655 ~ 2% +26.9% 82040 ~ 0% +312.1% 266434 ~ 1% +328.1% 276777 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_reclaimable
29746194 ~ 9% -24.3% 22509136 ~ 3% -31.6% 20349995 ~ 1% +10.5% 32855085 ~ 3% numa-meminfo.node1.MemFree
26.27 ~ 3% -19.8% 21.08 ~ 2% -38.5% 16.17 ~ 5% +7.5% 28.25 ~ 4% turbostat.%pc2
1.834e+08 ~ 2% -19.1% 1.483e+08 ~ 0% -30.6% 1.273e+08 ~ 0% +7.1% 1.963e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_local
1.835e+08 ~ 2% -19.1% 1.484e+08 ~ 0% -30.5% 1.274e+08 ~ 0% +7.1% 1.965e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_hit
253483 ~ 0% +24.4% 315364 ~ 0% +356.1% 1156183 ~ 3% +332.1% 1095207 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.SReclaimable
63485 ~ 0% +24.2% 78832 ~ 0% +355.1% 288938 ~ 3% +332.8% 274790 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_slab_reclaimable
1.834e+08 ~ 1% -19.1% 1.484e+08 ~ 0% -32.2% 1.244e+08 ~ 0% +6.4% 1.952e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
1.835e+08 ~ 1% -19.1% 1.485e+08 ~ 0% -32.2% 1.245e+08 ~ 0% +6.4% 1.953e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
31121 ~ 0% +24.2% 38660 ~ 0% +337.9% 136272 ~ 0% +346.2% 138852 ~ 0% slabinfo.radix_tree_node.active_slabs
31121 ~ 0% +24.2% 38660 ~ 0% +337.9% 136272 ~ 0% +346.2% 138852 ~ 0% slabinfo.radix_tree_node.num_slabs
1773967 ~ 0% +24.2% 2203652 ~ 0% +330.2% 7631290 ~ 0% +338.3% 7775736 ~ 0% slabinfo.radix_tree_node.num_objs
1.812e+08 ~ 1% -18.0% 1.486e+08 ~ 0% -36.8% 1.145e+08 ~ 0% +6.1% 1.923e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
1.812e+08 ~ 1% -18.0% 1.486e+08 ~ 0% -36.8% 1.145e+08 ~ 0% +6.1% 1.923e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
66070 ~ 3% +21.3% 80115 ~ 0% +321.2% 278266 ~ 2% +326.5% 281780 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_slab_reclaimable
300550 ~ 1% +24.0% 372562 ~ 0% +270.4% 1113328 ~ 1% +282.0% 1148228 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node0.Slab
263893 ~ 3% +21.5% 320550 ~ 0% +322.0% 1113565 ~ 2% +325.5% 1122866 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node3.SReclaimable
1.829e+08 ~ 1% -18.5% 1.491e+08 ~ 0% -29.1% 1.297e+08 ~ 0% +7.2% 1.961e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_local
1.83e+08 ~ 1% -18.5% 1.492e+08 ~ 0% -29.1% 1.298e+08 ~ 0% +7.2% 1.962e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_hit
259346 ~ 0% +23.4% 320065 ~ 0% +322.7% 1096319 ~ 0% +326.9% 1107135 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_slab_reclaimable
1037386 ~ 0% +23.4% 1280292 ~ 0% +323.0% 4387782 ~ 0% +328.0% 4439951 ~ 0% meminfo.SReclaimable
8287 ~11% +18.5% 9817 ~11% +15.1% 9539 ~15% +12.5% 9319 ~14% numa-meminfo.node0.AnonPages
2.577e+08 ~ 0% -17.7% 2.121e+08 ~ 0% -29.5% 1.817e+08 ~ 0% +0.5% 2.589e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node2.local_node
2.577e+08 ~ 0% -17.7% 2.121e+08 ~ 0% -29.5% 1.817e+08 ~ 0% +0.5% 2.589e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node2.numa_hit
286724 ~ 0% +22.0% 349778 ~ 0% +316.0% 1192776 ~ 2% +293.8% 1129211 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.Slab
Here I also compared those 3 patches with its base: v3.15-rc6, so that
you can see the changes between them clearly:
v3.15-rc6 60c10afd233f3344479d229dc
--------------- -------------------------
12235090 ~ 0% +217.7% 38868453 ~ 0% vm-scalability.throughput
794777 ~ 0% -96.4% 28598 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.allocstall
28.86 ~ 0% -100.0% 0.00 ~ 0% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.grab_super_passive.super_cache_count.shrink_slab_node.shrink_slab
0.04 ~30% +75293.9% 33.17 ~ 2% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.free_pcppages_bulk.free_hot_cold_page.free_hot_cold_page_list.shrink_page_list
0.00 +Inf% 19.20 ~ 4% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.get_page_from_freelist.__alloc_pages_nodemask.alloc_pages_current.__page_cache_alloc
10685 ~ 1% -84.6% 1646 ~ 1% proc-vmstat.pageoutrun
38274496 ~ 1% -82.3% 6769705 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_foreign
27239606 ~ 0% -90.7% 2542353 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_direct_dma32
1.099e+08 ~ 0% +740.6% 9.24e+08 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_direct_normal
6.507e+08 ~ 0% -97.2% 18386641 ~ 5% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_kswapd_normal
13 ~11% +3322.7% 472 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_isolated_file
28781337 ~ 0% -89.8% 2945933 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma32
97 ~ 8% +1974.9% 2021 ~ 2% proc-vmstat.nr_isolated_file
1570 ~ 5% -98.0% 30 ~25% proc-vmstat.compact_success
28.91 ~ 0% -100.0% 0.00 ~ 0% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.put_super.super_cache_count.shrink_slab_node.shrink_slab
1728 ~ 5% -98.1% 32 ~29% proc-vmstat.compact_stall
51802278 ~ 1% -81.4% 9652380 ~ 6% numa-numastat.node2.other_node
9625 ~ 2% -97.9% 205 ~17% proc-vmstat.kswapd_low_wmark_hit_quickly
33 ~20% +1330.3% 472 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_isolated_file
1.101e+08 ~ 0% +739.2% 9.242e+08 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct_normal
6344 ~12% -91.9% 513 ~22% cpuidle.C3-IVT-4S.usage
51796449 ~ 1% -81.4% 9647223 ~ 6% numa-numastat.node2.numa_miss
27244229 ~ 0% -90.7% 2542941 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgscan_direct_dma32
1154436 ~ 0% -94.3% 65731 ~24% proc-vmstat.pgsteal_kswapd_dma32
6.507e+08 ~ 0% -97.2% 18397644 ~ 5% proc-vmstat.pgscan_kswapd_normal
1154741 ~ 0% -94.3% 65815 ~24% proc-vmstat.pgscan_kswapd_dma32
56246521 ~ 1% -80.9% 10749818 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node1.numa_miss
19 ~21% +2538.9% 506 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_isolated_file
1.318e+10 ~31% -100.0% 1346 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_alloc_batch
56248990 ~ 1% -80.9% 10757658 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node1.other_node
60832325 ~ 0% -83.1% 10287850 ~ 4% numa-numastat.node0.numa_foreign
17 ~10% +2807.2% 511 ~ 2% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_isolated_file
1.03 ~ 9% +342.3% 4.57 ~10% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock_irq.__remove_mapping.shrink_page_list.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_lruvec
2.137e+08 ~ 0% -78.9% 44983257 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_foreign
2.137e+08 ~ 0% -78.9% 44983257 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_miss
2.137e+08 ~ 0% -78.9% 45006469 ~ 3% proc-vmstat.numa_other
53190547 ~ 0% -79.9% 10667387 ~ 5% numa-numastat.node1.numa_foreign
32588398 ~ 1% -80.2% 6457478 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_miss
32710857 ~ 1% -79.9% 6578224 ~ 5% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_other
35515296 ~ 1% -79.3% 7355910 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_miss
35633492 ~ 1% -79.0% 7476577 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other
48449737 ~ 0% -79.5% 9925875 ~11% numa-numastat.node3.numa_miss
48452382 ~ 0% -79.5% 9928289 ~11% numa-numastat.node3.other_node
33819005 ~ 0% -77.8% 7523408 ~ 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_foreign
50058077 ~ 1% -76.2% 11936784 ~ 9% numa-numastat.node2.numa_foreign
57177129 ~ 0% -74.4% 14660341 ~13% numa-numastat.node0.numa_miss
57180622 ~ 0% -74.3% 14668141 ~13% numa-numastat.node0.other_node
30551873 ~ 1% -77.1% 7001974 ~11% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_miss
171383 ~ 3% +315.8% 712676 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.workingset_nodereclaim
30671898 ~ 1% -76.8% 7121295 ~11% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_other
49589361 ~ 1% -75.6% 12091235 ~ 5% numa-numastat.node3.numa_foreign
3.20 ~ 3% -73.8% 0.84 ~ 7% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.get_page_from_freelist.__alloc_pages_nodemask.alloc_pages_current.__page_cache_alloc.__do_page_cache_readahead
36794158 ~ 0% -71.3% 10572718 ~13% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_miss
36798827 ~ 0% -71.3% 10578905 ~13% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other
31862655 ~ 1% -73.1% 8561430 ~ 8% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_foreign
5.49 ~ 3% -72.6% 1.51 ~ 2% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.read_hpet.ktime_get.sched_clock_tick.scheduler_tick.update_process_times
31494068 ~ 1% -72.9% 8535720 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_foreign
193959 ~32% +270.9% 719458 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node1.workingset_nodereclaim
5.54 ~24% -62.4% 2.08 ~ 2% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.read_hpet.ktime_get.tick_sched_timer.__run_hrtimer.hrtimer_interrupt
942413 ~ 1% +202.8% 2853944 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.workingset_nodereclaim
2.56 ~ 1% +183.7% 7.26 ~ 1% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.memset.mpage_readpages.xfs_vm_readpages.__do_page_cache_readahead.ondemand_readahead
0.66 ~ 3% +158.0% 1.71 ~ 1% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.do_mpage_readpage.mpage_readpages.xfs_vm_readpages.__do_page_cache_readahead.ondemand_readahead
278876 ~ 8% +160.9% 727574 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node3.workingset_nodereclaim
0.99 ~ 2% +153.7% 2.51 ~ 1% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.copy_user_enhanced_fast_string.generic_file_aio_read.xfs_file_aio_read.do_sync_read.vfs_read
1.06 ~ 4% +152.4% 2.68 ~ 7% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock_irq.shrink_inactive_list.shrink_lruvec.shrink_zone.shrink_zones
18293241 ~ 1% -60.0% 7322135 ~ 2% softirqs.TIMER
2751027 ~ 1% +143.4% 6694741 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.slabs_scanned
323697 ~13% +122.6% 720522 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.workingset_nodereclaim
2.97 ~20% -48.9% 1.52 ~ 2% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.read_hpet.ktime_get_update_offsets.hrtimer_interrupt.local_apic_timer_interrupt.smp_apic_timer_interrupt
267614 ~ 0% -54.0% 123176 ~ 1% cpuidle.C6-IVT-4S.usage
3854181 ~17% -53.9% 1775595 ~17% cpuidle.C1E-IVT-4S.time
557 ~15% -55.1% 250 ~ 8% cpuidle.C1E-IVT-4S.usage
13518 ~ 7% -42.6% 7760 ~15% proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates
16.17 ~ 5% +74.7% 28.25 ~ 4% turbostat.%pc2
1076 ~21% +59.1% 1712 ~17% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_mapped
11908 ~13% -42.3% 6872 ~11% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults
26.01 ~ 1% +72.2% 44.81 ~ 0% turbostat.%c6
78043140 ~ 1% +69.8% 1.326e+08 ~ 1% vmstat.memory.free
4293 ~22% +55.3% 6668 ~15% numa-meminfo.node3.Mapped
1.145e+08 ~ 0% +67.9% 1.923e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
1.145e+08 ~ 0% +67.9% 1.923e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
9263 ~ 6% -38.4% 5708 ~ 8% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
20284824 ~ 1% +65.8% 33629815 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_free_pages
81175485 ~ 0% +64.8% 1.338e+08 ~ 1% meminfo.MemFree
20560389 ~ 2% +63.2% 33549465 ~ 3% numa-meminfo.node2.MemFree
20349995 ~ 1% +61.5% 32855085 ~ 3% numa-meminfo.node1.MemFree
21705887 ~ 0% +63.0% 35376761 ~ 4% numa-meminfo.node0.MemFree
5166251 ~ 2% +62.1% 8371916 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_free_pages
5453418 ~ 0% +61.8% 8825066 ~ 4% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_free_pages
5113603 ~ 1% +60.2% 8193379 ~ 3% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_free_pages
541 ~ 0% -37.3% 339 ~ 0% uptime.boot
21369103 ~ 3% +60.1% 34212722 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node3.MemFree
5368886 ~ 3% +58.8% 8525297 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_free_pages
1.617e+08 ~ 0% +57.4% 2.545e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
1.617e+08 ~ 0% +57.4% 2.545e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
1.244e+08 ~ 0% +57.0% 1.952e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
1.245e+08 ~ 0% +56.9% 1.953e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
1.273e+08 ~ 0% +54.2% 1.963e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_local
1.274e+08 ~ 0% +54.1% 1.965e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node2.numa_hit
241038 ~ 3% -33.3% 160751 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_active_file
964486 ~ 3% -33.4% 642503 ~ 0% meminfo.Active(file)
3.16 ~ 5% -28.2% 2.27 ~18% perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.pagevec_lru_move_fn.__lru_cache_add.lru_cache_add.add_to_page_cache_lru
1009642 ~ 3% -32.4% 682854 ~ 0% meminfo.Active
1.297e+08 ~ 0% +51.2% 1.961e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_local
1.298e+08 ~ 0% +51.2% 1.962e+08 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.numa_hit
7.056e+08 ~ 0% +46.0% 1.03e+09 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.numa_hit
7.056e+08 ~ 0% +46.0% 1.03e+09 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.numa_local
1.768e+08 ~ 0% +45.7% 2.576e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
1.768e+08 ~ 0% +45.7% 2.576e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
1706990 ~ 2% -29.4% 1205381 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgfault
1.817e+08 ~ 0% +42.5% 2.589e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node2.local_node
1.817e+08 ~ 0% +42.5% 2.589e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node2.numa_hit
91 ~ 0% -30.0% 64 ~ 0% vmstat.procs.r
1.854e+08 ~ 0% +39.7% 2.59e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node3.local_node
1.854e+08 ~ 0% +39.7% 2.59e+08 ~ 0% numa-numastat.node3.numa_hit
2402 ~ 6% -23.8% 1830 ~ 9% numa-meminfo.node2.PageTables
189013 ~ 5% -26.2% 139474 ~ 1% proc-vmstat.pgactivate
599 ~ 5% -23.3% 460 ~ 9% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_page_table_pages
567 ~ 1% -23.8% 432 ~ 3% slabinfo.kmalloc-8192.active_objs
567 ~ 1% -23.8% 432 ~ 3% slabinfo.kmalloc-8192.num_objs
2403 ~ 8% -24.8% 1807 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables
3439 ~ 7% -25.1% 2574 ~21% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_active_anon
13778 ~ 7% -25.4% 10275 ~21% numa-meminfo.node2.Active(anon)
13823 ~ 7% -25.6% 10288 ~21% numa-meminfo.node2.AnonPages
3449 ~ 7% -25.3% 2577 ~21% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_anon_pages
599 ~ 9% -23.7% 457 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_page_table_pages
5832 ~ 1% -19.6% 4692 ~ 2% cpuidle.C1-IVT-4S.usage
2323 ~ 0% -17.9% 1907 ~ 1% proc-vmstat.nr_page_table_pages
9308 ~ 0% -17.9% 7642 ~ 1% meminfo.PageTables
17256 ~ 4% +27.1% 21940 ~ 8% meminfo.Mapped
8.922e+08 ~ 0% +20.3% 1.074e+09 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
3907 ~ 2% +47.8% 5777 ~27% numa-meminfo.node2.Mapped
987 ~ 2% +31.7% 1300 ~13% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_mapped
9.207e+08 ~ 0% +16.9% 1.076e+09 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.pgfree
1.356e+10 ~ 1% -14.2% 1.163e+10 ~ 0% cpuidle.C6-IVT-4S.time
2246 ~ 3% -12.6% 1963 ~ 5% numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables
1.083e+08 ~ 0% -12.7% 94534696 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node0.FilePages
1.079e+08 ~ 0% -12.6% 94270824 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive(file)
1.079e+08 ~ 0% -12.6% 94270854 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive
559 ~ 3% -11.6% 494 ~ 4% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages
1774 ~ 2% +12.1% 1989 ~ 4% slabinfo.sock_inode_cache.num_objs
1774 ~ 2% +12.1% 1989 ~ 4% slabinfo.sock_inode_cache.active_objs
1.102e+08 ~ 0% -12.4% 96552102 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node0.MemUsed
4.424e+08 ~ 0% -12.4% 3.877e+08 ~ 0% vmstat.memory.cache
26940036 ~ 0% -12.5% 23585745 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_inactive_file
27043809 ~ 0% -12.5% 23651628 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_file_pages
1.098e+08 ~ 0% -12.2% 96437485 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_file_pages
1.093e+08 ~ 0% -12.2% 96005869 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_inactive_file
4528 ~ 5% +18.2% 5353 ~10% proc-vmstat.nr_mapped
4.392e+08 ~ 0% -12.0% 3.865e+08 ~ 0% meminfo.Cached
1.096e+08 ~ 0% -11.8% 96632158 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.FilePages
4.372e+08 ~ 0% -12.0% 3.848e+08 ~ 0% meminfo.Inactive(file)
1.093e+08 ~ 0% -11.9% 96232093 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.Inactive
1.093e+08 ~ 0% -11.9% 96232069 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.Inactive(file)
4.374e+08 ~ 0% -12.0% 3.85e+08 ~ 0% meminfo.Inactive
1.116e+08 ~ 0% -11.6% 98566609 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node2.MemUsed
27073175 ~ 0% -11.8% 23870731 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_inactive_file
1.084e+08 ~ 0% -12.0% 95375555 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node3.Inactive(file)
1.084e+08 ~ 0% -12.0% 95375696 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node3.Inactive
1.098e+08 ~ 0% -11.5% 97177949 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node1.FilePages
27368670 ~ 0% -11.7% 24172297 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_file_pages
27292874 ~ 0% -11.8% 24072388 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node2.nr_inactive_file
1.088e+08 ~ 0% -11.8% 95932998 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node3.FilePages
27177317 ~ 0% -11.7% 24010011 ~ 0% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_file_pages
1.118e+08 ~ 0% -11.2% 99260989 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node1.MemUsed
1.107e+08 ~ 0% -11.6% 97902893 ~ 0% numa-meminfo.node3.MemUsed
27415800 ~ 0% -11.3% 24313716 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_file_pages
1.088e+08 ~ 0% -11.2% 96669488 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive(file)
1.091e+08 ~ 0% -11.1% 96922630 ~ 1% numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive
10839 ~ 0% -11.0% 9643 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_anon_pages
27179244 ~ 0% -11.0% 24186654 ~ 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_file
43359 ~ 0% -10.9% 38620 ~ 0% meminfo.AnonPages
11286 ~ 0% -10.7% 10078 ~ 0% proc-vmstat.nr_active_anon
45155 ~ 0% -10.6% 40350 ~ 0% meminfo.Active(anon)
401298 ~ 7% +11.8% 448799 ~ 7% meminfo.Committed_AS
33611 ~ 0% -60.9% 13155 ~ 0% time.system_time
409 ~ 0% -49.3% 207 ~ 0% time.elapsed_time
2135 ~ 1% +70.1% 3631 ~ 8% time.voluntary_context_switches
2179 ~ 1% +47.5% 3214 ~ 0% vmstat.system.cs
72.36 ~ 0% -26.3% 53.33 ~ 0% turbostat.%c0
8222 ~ 0% -22.5% 6375 ~ 0% time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
70.17 ~ 0% +28.9% 90.42 ~ 0% time.user_time
234540 ~ 0% -19.8% 188128 ~ 0% time.involuntary_context_switches
325 ~ 0% -15.9% 273 ~ 0% turbostat.Cor_W
396 ~ 0% -12.8% 345 ~ 0% turbostat.Pkg_W
85.30 ~ 0% +12.2% 95.67 ~ 0% turbostat.RAM_W
118580 ~ 0% -6.9% 110376 ~ 0% vmstat.system.in
121252 ~ 0% -3.6% 116834 ~ 0% time.minor_page_faults
--yliu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
[not found] <1400749779-24879-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-22 16:14 ` [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim Yuanhan Liu
@ 2014-05-22 17:22 ` Tim Chen
2014-05-26 21:44 ` Hugh Dickins
5 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Tim Chen @ 2014-05-22 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman
Cc: Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Hugh Dickins, Dave Chinner,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Thu, 2014-05-22 at 10:09 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
As far as I remembered, I think Dave was planning to merge this as part
of his VFS scalability patch series. Otherwise there wasn't any other
issues.
Thanks to Mel for looking at these patches and Yunhan for testing them.
Tim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
[not found] <1400749779-24879-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2014-05-22 17:22 ` Tim Chen
@ 2014-05-26 21:44 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-27 2:37 ` Dave Chinner
5 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Hugh Dickins @ 2014-05-26 21:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mel Gorman
Cc: Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Tim Chen, Dave Chinner,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Thu, 22 May 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
> This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
> The last patch adjusts proportional reclaim. Yuanhan Liu, can you retest
> the vm scalability test cases on a larger machine? Hugh, does this work
> for you on the memcg test cases?
Yes it does, thank you.
Though the situation is muddy, since on our current internal tree, I'm
surprised to find that the memcg test case no longer fails reliably
without our workaround and without your fix.
"Something must have changed"; but it would take a long time to work
out what. If I travel back in time with git, to where we first applied
the "vindictive" patch, then yes that test case convincingly fails
without either (my or your) patch, and passes with either patch.
And you have something that satisfies Yuanhan too, that's great.
I'm also pleased to see Dave and Tim reduce the contention in
grab_super_passive(): that's a familiar symbol from livelock dumps.
You might want to add this little 4/3, that we've had in for a
while; but with grab_super_passive() out of super_cache_count(),
it will have much less importance.
[PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
---
fs/super.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
--- melgo/fs/super.c 2014-05-26 13:39:33.000131904 -0700
+++ linux/fs/super.c 2014-05-26 13:56:19.012155813 -0700
@@ -110,6 +110,12 @@ static unsigned long super_cache_count(s
struct super_block *sb;
long total_objects = 0;
+ /*
+ * None can be freed without __GFP_FS, so don't waste time counting.
+ */
+ if (!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_FS))
+ return 0;
+
sb = container_of(shrink, struct super_block, s_shrink);
/*
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-26 21:44 ` Hugh Dickins
@ 2014-05-27 2:37 ` Dave Chinner
2014-05-27 21:17 ` Hugh Dickins
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2014-05-27 2:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hugh Dickins
Cc: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Tim Chen,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2014, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> > This series is aimed at regressions noticed during reclaim activity. The
> > first two patches are shrinker patches that were posted ages ago but never
> > merged for reasons that are unclear to me. I'm posting them again to see if
> > there was a reason they were dropped or if they just got lost. Dave? Time?
> > The last patch adjusts proportional reclaim. Yuanhan Liu, can you retest
> > the vm scalability test cases on a larger machine? Hugh, does this work
> > for you on the memcg test cases?
>
> Yes it does, thank you.
>
> Though the situation is muddy, since on our current internal tree, I'm
> surprised to find that the memcg test case no longer fails reliably
> without our workaround and without your fix.
>
> "Something must have changed"; but it would take a long time to work
> out what. If I travel back in time with git, to where we first applied
> the "vindictive" patch, then yes that test case convincingly fails
> without either (my or your) patch, and passes with either patch.
>
> And you have something that satisfies Yuanhan too, that's great.
>
> I'm also pleased to see Dave and Tim reduce the contention in
> grab_super_passive(): that's a familiar symbol from livelock dumps.
>
> You might want to add this little 4/3, that we've had in for a
> while; but with grab_super_passive() out of super_cache_count(),
> it will have much less importance.
>
>
> [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
>
> Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
> super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
While you might think that's a good thing, it's not. The act of
shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
needs to take place. The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-27 2:37 ` Dave Chinner
@ 2014-05-27 21:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-27 23:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Hugh Dickins @ 2014-05-27 21:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dave Chinner
Cc: Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner, Tim Chen,
Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel,
Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >
> > [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
> >
> > Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
> > super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>
> While you might think that's a good thing, it's not. The act of
> shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
> needs to take place. The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
> to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
> context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
>
> Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
> adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
> filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
> done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
> will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
Thanks for filling me in on that. At first I misunderstood you,
and went off looking in the wrong direction. Now I see what you're
referring to: the quantity that shrink_slab_node() accumulates in
and withdraws from shrinker->nr_deferred[nid].
Right: forget my super_cache_count() __GFP_FS patch!
Hugh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-27 21:17 ` Hugh Dickins
@ 2014-05-27 23:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2014-05-27 23:19 ` Hugh Dickins
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Konstantin Khlebnikov @ 2014-05-27 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hugh Dickins
Cc: Dave Chinner, Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner,
Tim Chen, Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel,
Linux Kernel, Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> >
>> > [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
>> >
>> > Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
>> > super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
>>
>> While you might think that's a good thing, it's not. The act of
>> shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
>> needs to take place. The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
>> to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
>> context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
>>
>> Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
>> adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
>> filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
>> done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
>> will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
>
> Thanks for filling me in on that. At first I misunderstood you,
> and went off looking in the wrong direction. Now I see what you're
> referring to: the quantity that shrink_slab_node() accumulates in
> and withdraws from shrinker->nr_deferred[nid].
Maybe shrinker could accumulate fraction nr_pages_scanned / lru_pages
instead of exact amount of required work? Count of shrinkable objects
might be calculated later, when shrinker is called from a suitable context and
can actualy do something.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-27 23:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
@ 2014-05-27 23:19 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-28 1:37 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread
From: Hugh Dickins @ 2014-05-27 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov
Cc: Dave Chinner, Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton, Johannes Weiner,
Tim Chen, Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara, Rik van Riel,
Linux Kernel, Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Wed, 28 May 2014, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> >> >
> >> > [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
> >> >
> >> > Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
> >> > super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> >>
> >> While you might think that's a good thing, it's not. The act of
> >> shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
> >> needs to take place. The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
> >> to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
> >> context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
> >>
> >> Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
> >> adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
> >> filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
> >> done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
> >> will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
> >
> > Thanks for filling me in on that. At first I misunderstood you,
> > and went off looking in the wrong direction. Now I see what you're
> > referring to: the quantity that shrink_slab_node() accumulates in
> > and withdraws from shrinker->nr_deferred[nid].
>
> Maybe shrinker could accumulate fraction nr_pages_scanned / lru_pages
> instead of exact amount of required work? Count of shrinkable objects
> might be calculated later, when shrinker is called from a suitable context
> and can actualy do something.
Good idea, probably a worthwhile optimization to think through further.
(Though experience says that Dave will explain how that can never work.)
Hugh
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim
2014-05-27 23:19 ` Hugh Dickins
@ 2014-05-28 1:37 ` Dave Chinner
0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread
From: Dave Chinner @ 2014-05-28 1:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Hugh Dickins
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov, Mel Gorman, Andrew Morton,
Johannes Weiner, Tim Chen, Yuanhan Liu, Bob Liu, Jan Kara,
Rik van Riel, Linux Kernel, Linux-MM, Linux-FSDevel
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:19:12PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2014, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 27 May 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 02:44:29PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > [PATCH 4/3] fs/superblock: Avoid counting without __GFP_FS
> > >> >
> > >> > Don't waste time counting objects in super_cache_count() if no __GFP_FS:
> > >> > super_cache_scan() would only back out with SHRINK_STOP in that case.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > >>
> > >> While you might think that's a good thing, it's not. The act of
> > >> shrinking is kept separate from the accounting of how much shrinking
> > >> needs to take place. The amount of work the shrinker can't do due
> > >> to the reclaim context is deferred until the shrinker is called in a
> > >> context where it can do work (eg. kswapd)
> > >>
> > >> Hence not accounting for work that can't be done immediately will
> > >> adversely impact the balance of the system under memory intensive
> > >> filesystem workloads. In these worklaods, almost all allocations are
> > >> done in the GFP_NOFS or GFP_NOIO contexts so not deferring the work
> > >> will will effectively stop superblock cache reclaim entirely....
> > >
> > > Thanks for filling me in on that. At first I misunderstood you,
> > > and went off looking in the wrong direction. Now I see what you're
> > > referring to: the quantity that shrink_slab_node() accumulates in
> > > and withdraws from shrinker->nr_deferred[nid].
> >
> > Maybe shrinker could accumulate fraction nr_pages_scanned / lru_pages
> > instead of exact amount of required work? Count of shrinkable objects
> > might be calculated later, when shrinker is called from a suitable context
> > and can actualy do something.
>
> Good idea, probably a worthwhile optimization to think through further.
> (Though experience says that Dave will explain how that can never work.)
Heh. :)
Two things, neither are show-stoppers but would need to be handled
in some way.
First: it would remove a lot of the policy flexibility from the
shrinker implementations that we currently have. i.e. the "work to
do" policy is current set by the shrinker, not by the shrinker
infrastructure. The shrinker infrastructure only determines whether
it can be done immediately of whether it shoul dbe deferred....
e.g. there are shrinkers that don't do work unless they are
over certain thresholds. For these shrinkers, they need to have the
work calculated by the callout as they may decide nothing
can/should/needs to be done, and that decision may have nothing to
do with the current reclaim context. You can't really do this
without a callout to determine the cache size.
The other thing I see is that deferring the ratio of work rather
than the actual work is that it doesn't take into account the fact
that the cache sizes might be changing in a different way to memory
pressure. i.e. a sudden increase in cache size just before deferred
reclaim occurred would cause much more reclaim than the current
code, even though the cache wasn't contributing to the original
deferred memory pressure.
This will lead to bursty/peaky reclaim behaviour because we then
can't distinguish an large instantenous change in memory pressure
from "wind up" caused by lots of small increments of deferred work.
We specifically damp the second case:
/*
* We need to avoid excessive windup on filesystem shrinkers
* due to large numbers of GFP_NOFS allocations causing the
* shrinkers to return -1 all the time. This results in a large
* nr being built up so when a shrink that can do some work
* comes along it empties the entire cache due to nr >>>
* freeable. This is bad for sustaining a working set in
* memory.
*
* Hence only allow the shrinker to scan the entire cache when
* a large delta change is calculated directly.
*/
Hence we'd need a different mechanism to prevent such defered work
wind up from occurring. We can probably do better than the current
SWAG if we design a new algorithm that has this damping built in.
The current algorithm is all based around the "seek penalty"
reinstantiating a reclaimed object has, and that simply does not
match for many shrinker users now as they aren't spinning disk
based. Hence I think we really need to look at improving the entire
shrinker "work" algorithm rather than just tinkering around the
edges...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-05-28 1:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1400749779-24879-1-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-2-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
2014-05-22 15:52 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs/superblock: Unregister sb shrinker before ->kill_sb() Rik van Riel
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-3-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
2014-05-22 15:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] fs/superblock: Avoid locking counting inodes and dentries before reclaiming them Rik van Riel
[not found] ` <1400749779-24879-4-git-send-email-mgorman@suse.de>
2014-05-22 16:04 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm: vmscan: Use proportional scanning during direct reclaim and full scan at DEF_PRIORITY Rik van Riel
2014-05-22 16:14 ` [PATCH 0/3] Shrinkers and proportional reclaim Yuanhan Liu
2014-05-22 16:30 ` Mel Gorman
2014-05-23 2:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
2014-05-22 17:22 ` Tim Chen
2014-05-26 21:44 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-27 2:37 ` Dave Chinner
2014-05-27 21:17 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-27 23:02 ` Konstantin Khlebnikov
2014-05-27 23:19 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-28 1:37 ` Dave Chinner
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).