* [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks
@ 2014-12-12 16:01 Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations Vlastimil Babka
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2014-12-12 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Cc: linux-kernel, Vlastimil Babka, Aneesh Kumar K.V, David Rientjes,
Johannes Weiner, Joonsoo Kim, Kirill A. Shutemov,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Minchan Kim,
Rik van Riel, Zhang Yanfei
Changes since v1:
o Reorder patch 2 and 3, Cc stable for patch 1
o Fix tracepoint in patch 1 (Joonsoo Kim)
o Cleanup in patch 2 (suggested by Minchan Kim)
o Improved comments and changelogs per Minchan and Mel.
o Considered /proc/pagetypeinfo in evaluation with 3.18 as baseline
When studying page stealing, I noticed some weird looking decisions in
try_to_steal_freepages(). The first I assume is a bug (Patch 1), the following
two patches were driven by evaluation.
Testing was done with stress-highalloc of mmtests, using the
mm_page_alloc_extfrag tracepoint and postprocessing to get counts of how often
page stealing occurs for individual migratetypes, and what migratetypes are
used for fallbacks. Arguably, the worst case of page stealing is when
UNMOVABLE allocation steals from MOVABLE pageblock. RECLAIMABLE allocation
stealing from MOVABLE allocation is also not ideal, so the goal is to minimize
these two cases.
For some reason, the first patch increased the number of page stealing events
for MOVABLE allocations in the former evaluation with 3.17-rc7 + compaction
patches. In theory these events are not as bad, and the second patch does more
than just to correct this. In v2 evaluation based on 3.18, the weird result
was gone completely.
In v2 I also checked if /proc/pagetypeinfo has shown an increase of the number
of unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks during and after the test, and it didn't.
The test was repeated 25 times with reboot only after each 5 to show
longer-term differences in the state of the system, which also wasn't the case.
Extfrag events summed over first iteration after reboot (5 repeats)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
Compared to v1 this looks like a regression for patch 1 wrt unmovable events,
but I blame noise and less repeats (it was 10 in v1). On the other hand, the
the mysterious increase in movable allocation events in v1 is gone (due to
different baseline?)
Sum for second iterations since reboot:
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
Page alloc extfrag event 1960806 1682705 868136 602097
Extfrag fragmenting 1960268 1682153 867624 601608
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14373 13973 12275 2158
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 10465 7233 8814 1821
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2268 1244 1122 1284
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2092 1010 940 1033
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1943627 1666936 854227 598166
Running stress-highalloc again without reboot is indeed different, and worse
wrt unmovable allocations (also worse wrt high-order allocation success rates)
but the patches improve it as well. Similar trend can be observed for further
iterations after reboot.
Vlastimil Babka (3):
mm: when stealing freepages, also take pages created by splitting
buddy page
mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations
mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations
include/trace/events/kmem.h | 7 ++--
mm/page_alloc.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
--
2.1.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations
2014-12-12 16:01 [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Vlastimil Babka
@ 2014-12-12 16:01 ` Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-15 7:51 ` Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-15 7:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Joonsoo Kim
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2014-12-12 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Cc: linux-kernel, Vlastimil Babka, Zhang Yanfei, David Rientjes,
Rik van Riel, Aneesh Kumar K.V, Kirill A. Shutemov,
Johannes Weiner, Joonsoo Kim, Michal Hocko, KOSAKI Motohiro,
Mel Gorman, Minchan Kim
When allocation falls back to another migratetype, it will steal a page with
highest available order, and (depending on this order and desired migratetype),
it might also steal the rest of free pages from the same pageblock.
Given the preference of highest available order, it is likely that it will be
higher than the desired order, and result in the stolen buddy page being split.
The remaining pages after split are currently stolen only when the rest of the
free pages are stolen. This can however lead to situations where for MOVABLE
allocations we split e.g. order-4 fallback UNMOVABLE page, but steal only
order-0 page. Then on the next MOVABLE allocation (which may be batched to
fill the pcplists) we split another order-3 or higher page, etc. By stealing
all pages that we have split, we can avoid further stealing.
This patch therefore adjusts the page stealing so that buddy pages created by
split are always stolen. This has effect only on MOVABLE allocations, as
RECLAIMABLE and UNMOVABLE allocations already always do that in addition to
stealing the rest of free pages from the pageblock. The change also allows
to simplify try_to_steal_freepages() and factor out CMA handling.
According to Mel, it has been intended since the beginning that buddy pages
after split would be stolen always, but it doesn't seem like it was ever the
case until commit 47118af076f6 ("mm: mmzone: MIGRATE_CMA migration type
added"). The commit has unintentionally introduced this behavior, but was
reverted by commit 0cbef29a7821 ("mm: __rmqueue_fallback() should respect
pageblock type"). Neither included evaluation.
My evaluation with stress-highalloc from mmtests shows about 2.5x reduction
of page stealing events for MOVABLE allocations, without affecting the page
stealing events for other allocation migratetypes.
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index c32cb64..2cfd5d9 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1067,33 +1067,18 @@ static void change_pageblock_range(struct page *pageblock_page,
/*
* If breaking a large block of pages, move all free pages to the preferred
* allocation list. If falling back for a reclaimable kernel allocation, be
- * more aggressive about taking ownership of free pages.
- *
- * On the other hand, never change migration type of MIGRATE_CMA pageblocks
- * nor move CMA pages to different free lists. We don't want unmovable pages
- * to be allocated from MIGRATE_CMA areas.
- *
- * Returns the allocation migratetype if free pages were stolen, or the
- * fallback migratetype if it was decided not to steal.
+ * more aggressive about taking ownership of free pages. If we claim more than
+ * half of the pageblock, change pageblock's migratetype as well.
*/
-static int try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
+static void try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
int start_type, int fallback_type)
{
int current_order = page_order(page);
- /*
- * When borrowing from MIGRATE_CMA, we need to release the excess
- * buddy pages to CMA itself. We also ensure the freepage_migratetype
- * is set to CMA so it is returned to the correct freelist in case
- * the page ends up being not actually allocated from the pcp lists.
- */
- if (is_migrate_cma(fallback_type))
- return fallback_type;
-
/* Take ownership for orders >= pageblock_order */
if (current_order >= pageblock_order) {
change_pageblock_range(page, current_order, start_type);
- return start_type;
+ return;
}
if (current_order >= pageblock_order / 2 ||
@@ -1107,11 +1092,7 @@ static int try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
if (pages >= (1 << (pageblock_order-1)) ||
page_group_by_mobility_disabled)
set_pageblock_migratetype(page, start_type);
-
- return start_type;
}
-
- return fallback_type;
}
/* Remove an element from the buddy allocator from the fallback list */
@@ -1121,14 +1102,15 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
struct free_area *area;
unsigned int current_order;
struct page *page;
- int migratetype, new_type, i;
/* Find the largest possible block of pages in the other list */
for (current_order = MAX_ORDER-1;
current_order >= order && current_order <= MAX_ORDER-1;
--current_order) {
+ int i;
for (i = 0;; i++) {
- migratetype = fallbacks[start_migratetype][i];
+ int migratetype = fallbacks[start_migratetype][i];
+ int buddy_type = start_migratetype;
/* MIGRATE_RESERVE handled later if necessary */
if (migratetype == MIGRATE_RESERVE)
@@ -1142,22 +1124,36 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
struct page, lru);
area->nr_free--;
- new_type = try_to_steal_freepages(zone, page,
- start_migratetype,
- migratetype);
+ if (!is_migrate_cma(migratetype)) {
+ try_to_steal_freepages(zone, page,
+ start_migratetype,
+ migratetype);
+ } else {
+ /*
+ * When borrowing from MIGRATE_CMA, we need to
+ * release the excess buddy pages to CMA
+ * itself, and we do not try to steal extra
+ * free pages.
+ */
+ buddy_type = migratetype;
+ }
/* Remove the page from the freelists */
list_del(&page->lru);
rmv_page_order(page);
expand(zone, page, order, current_order, area,
- new_type);
- /* The freepage_migratetype may differ from pageblock's
+ buddy_type);
+
+ /*
+ * The freepage_migratetype may differ from pageblock's
* migratetype depending on the decisions in
- * try_to_steal_freepages. This is OK as long as it does
- * not differ for MIGRATE_CMA type.
+ * try_to_steal_freepages(). This is OK as long as it
+ * does not differ for MIGRATE_CMA pageblocks. For CMA
+ * we need to make sure unallocated pages flushed from
+ * pcp lists are returned to the correct freelist.
*/
- set_freepage_migratetype(page, new_type);
+ set_freepage_migratetype(page, buddy_type);
trace_mm_page_alloc_extfrag(page, order, current_order,
start_migratetype, migratetype);
--
2.1.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations
2014-12-12 16:01 [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations Vlastimil Babka
@ 2014-12-12 16:01 ` Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-15 7:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Joonsoo Kim
2 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2014-12-12 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, linux-mm
Cc: linux-kernel, Vlastimil Babka, Zhang Yanfei, Minchan Kim,
David Rientjes, Rik van Riel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
Kirill A. Shutemov, Johannes Weiner, Joonsoo Kim, Michal Hocko,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman
When allocation falls back to stealing free pages of another migratetype,
it can decide to steal extra pages, or even the whole pageblock in order to
reduce fragmentation, which could happen if further allocation fallbacks
pick a different pageblock. In try_to_steal_freepages(), one of the situations
where extra pages are stolen happens when we are trying to allocate a
MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE page.
However, MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE allocations are not treated the same way, although
spreading such allocation over multiple fallback pageblocks is arguably even
worse than it is for RECLAIMABLE allocations. To minimize fragmentation, we
should minimize the number of such fallbacks, and thus steal as much as is
possible from each fallback pageblock.
Note that in theory this might put more pressure on movable pageblocks and
cause movable allocations to steal back from unmovable pageblocks. However,
movable allocations are not as aggressive with stealing, and do not cause
permanent fragmentation, so the tradeoff is reasonable, and evaluation seems
to support the change.
This patch thus adds a check for MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE to the decision to steal
extra free pages. When evaluating with stress-highalloc from mmtests, this has
reduced the number of MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE fallbacks to roughly 1/6. The number
of these fallbacks stealing from MIGRATE_MOVABLE block is reduced to 1/3.
There was no observation of growing number of unmovable pageblocks over time,
and also not of increased movable allocation fallbacks.
Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
---
mm/page_alloc.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
index 2cfd5d9..a015828 100644
--- a/mm/page_alloc.c
+++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
@@ -1065,10 +1065,19 @@ static void change_pageblock_range(struct page *pageblock_page,
}
/*
- * If breaking a large block of pages, move all free pages to the preferred
- * allocation list. If falling back for a reclaimable kernel allocation, be
- * more aggressive about taking ownership of free pages. If we claim more than
- * half of the pageblock, change pageblock's migratetype as well.
+ * When we are falling back to another migratetype during allocation, try to
+ * steal extra free pages from the same pageblocks to satisfy further
+ * allocations, instead of polluting multiple pageblocks.
+ *
+ * If we are stealing a relatively large buddy page, it is likely there will
+ * be more free pages in the pageblock, so try to steal them all. For
+ * reclaimable and unmovable allocations, we steal regardless of page size,
+ * as fragmentation caused by those allocations polluting movable pageblocks
+ * is worse than movable allocations stealing from unmovable and reclaimable
+ * pageblocks.
+ *
+ * If we claim more than half of the pageblock, change pageblock's migratetype
+ * as well.
*/
static void try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
int start_type, int fallback_type)
@@ -1083,6 +1092,7 @@ static void try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
if (current_order >= pageblock_order / 2 ||
start_type == MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE ||
+ start_type == MIGRATE_UNMOVABLE ||
page_group_by_mobility_disabled) {
int pages;
--
2.1.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks
2014-12-12 16:01 [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations Vlastimil Babka
@ 2014-12-15 7:50 ` Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-15 9:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonsoo Kim @ 2014-12-15 7:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
David Rientjes, Johannes Weiner, Kirill A. Shutemov,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Minchan Kim,
Rik van Riel, Zhang Yanfei
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Changes since v1:
> o Reorder patch 2 and 3, Cc stable for patch 1
> o Fix tracepoint in patch 1 (Joonsoo Kim)
> o Cleanup in patch 2 (suggested by Minchan Kim)
> o Improved comments and changelogs per Minchan and Mel.
> o Considered /proc/pagetypeinfo in evaluation with 3.18 as baseline
>
> When studying page stealing, I noticed some weird looking decisions in
> try_to_steal_freepages(). The first I assume is a bug (Patch 1), the following
> two patches were driven by evaluation.
>
> Testing was done with stress-highalloc of mmtests, using the
> mm_page_alloc_extfrag tracepoint and postprocessing to get counts of how often
> page stealing occurs for individual migratetypes, and what migratetypes are
> used for fallbacks. Arguably, the worst case of page stealing is when
> UNMOVABLE allocation steals from MOVABLE pageblock. RECLAIMABLE allocation
> stealing from MOVABLE allocation is also not ideal, so the goal is to minimize
> these two cases.
>
> For some reason, the first patch increased the number of page stealing events
> for MOVABLE allocations in the former evaluation with 3.17-rc7 + compaction
> patches. In theory these events are not as bad, and the second patch does more
> than just to correct this. In v2 evaluation based on 3.18, the weird result
> was gone completely.
>
> In v2 I also checked if /proc/pagetypeinfo has shown an increase of the number
> of unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks during and after the test, and it didn't.
> The test was repeated 25 times with reboot only after each 5 to show
> longer-term differences in the state of the system, which also wasn't the case.
>
> Extfrag events summed over first iteration after reboot (5 repeats)
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
> Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
>
> Compared to v1 this looks like a regression for patch 1 wrt unmovable events,
> but I blame noise and less repeats (it was 10 in v1). On the other hand, the
> the mysterious increase in movable allocation events in v1 is gone (due to
> different baseline?)
Hmm... the result on patch 2 looks odd.
Because you reorder patches, patch 2 have some effects on unmovable
stealing and I expect that 'Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable' decreases.
But, the result looks not. Is there any reason you think?
And, could you share compaction success rate and allocation success
rate on each iteration? In fact, reducing Extfrag event isn't our goal.
It is natural result of this patchset because we steal pages more
aggressively. Our utimate goal is to make the system less fragmented
and to get more high order freepage, so I'd like to know this results.
Thanks.
>
> Sum for second iterations since reboot:
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
> Page alloc extfrag event 1960806 1682705 868136 602097
> Extfrag fragmenting 1960268 1682153 867624 601608
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14373 13973 12275 2158
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 10465 7233 8814 1821
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2268 1244 1122 1284
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2092 1010 940 1033
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1943627 1666936 854227 598166
>
> Running stress-highalloc again without reboot is indeed different, and worse
> wrt unmovable allocations (also worse wrt high-order allocation success rates)
> but the patches improve it as well. Similar trend can be observed for further
> iterations after reboot.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vlastimil Babka (3):
> mm: when stealing freepages, also take pages created by splitting
> buddy page
> mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations
> mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations
>
> include/trace/events/kmem.h | 7 ++--
> mm/page_alloc.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.1.2
>
> --
> 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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations Vlastimil Babka
@ 2014-12-15 7:51 ` Joonsoo Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonsoo Kim @ 2014-12-15 7:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Zhang Yanfei,
David Rientjes, Rik van Riel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
Kirill A. Shutemov, Johannes Weiner, Michal Hocko,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Minchan Kim
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:24PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> When allocation falls back to another migratetype, it will steal a page with
> highest available order, and (depending on this order and desired migratetype),
> it might also steal the rest of free pages from the same pageblock.
>
> Given the preference of highest available order, it is likely that it will be
> higher than the desired order, and result in the stolen buddy page being split.
> The remaining pages after split are currently stolen only when the rest of the
> free pages are stolen. This can however lead to situations where for MOVABLE
> allocations we split e.g. order-4 fallback UNMOVABLE page, but steal only
> order-0 page. Then on the next MOVABLE allocation (which may be batched to
> fill the pcplists) we split another order-3 or higher page, etc. By stealing
> all pages that we have split, we can avoid further stealing.
>
> This patch therefore adjusts the page stealing so that buddy pages created by
> split are always stolen. This has effect only on MOVABLE allocations, as
> RECLAIMABLE and UNMOVABLE allocations already always do that in addition to
> stealing the rest of free pages from the pageblock. The change also allows
> to simplify try_to_steal_freepages() and factor out CMA handling.
Maybe, this message should be fixed, because you reorder patches.
Thanks.
>
> According to Mel, it has been intended since the beginning that buddy pages
> after split would be stolen always, but it doesn't seem like it was ever the
> case until commit 47118af076f6 ("mm: mmzone: MIGRATE_CMA migration type
> added"). The commit has unintentionally introduced this behavior, but was
> reverted by commit 0cbef29a7821 ("mm: __rmqueue_fallback() should respect
> pageblock type"). Neither included evaluation.
>
> My evaluation with stress-highalloc from mmtests shows about 2.5x reduction
> of page stealing events for MOVABLE allocations, without affecting the page
> stealing events for other allocation migratetypes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
> Cc: Zhang Yanfei <zhangyanfei@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Acked-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
> Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> mm/page_alloc.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/page_alloc.c b/mm/page_alloc.c
> index c32cb64..2cfd5d9 100644
> --- a/mm/page_alloc.c
> +++ b/mm/page_alloc.c
> @@ -1067,33 +1067,18 @@ static void change_pageblock_range(struct page *pageblock_page,
> /*
> * If breaking a large block of pages, move all free pages to the preferred
> * allocation list. If falling back for a reclaimable kernel allocation, be
> - * more aggressive about taking ownership of free pages.
> - *
> - * On the other hand, never change migration type of MIGRATE_CMA pageblocks
> - * nor move CMA pages to different free lists. We don't want unmovable pages
> - * to be allocated from MIGRATE_CMA areas.
> - *
> - * Returns the allocation migratetype if free pages were stolen, or the
> - * fallback migratetype if it was decided not to steal.
> + * more aggressive about taking ownership of free pages. If we claim more than
> + * half of the pageblock, change pageblock's migratetype as well.
> */
> -static int try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
> +static void try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
> int start_type, int fallback_type)
> {
> int current_order = page_order(page);
>
> - /*
> - * When borrowing from MIGRATE_CMA, we need to release the excess
> - * buddy pages to CMA itself. We also ensure the freepage_migratetype
> - * is set to CMA so it is returned to the correct freelist in case
> - * the page ends up being not actually allocated from the pcp lists.
> - */
> - if (is_migrate_cma(fallback_type))
> - return fallback_type;
> -
> /* Take ownership for orders >= pageblock_order */
> if (current_order >= pageblock_order) {
> change_pageblock_range(page, current_order, start_type);
> - return start_type;
> + return;
> }
>
> if (current_order >= pageblock_order / 2 ||
> @@ -1107,11 +1092,7 @@ static int try_to_steal_freepages(struct zone *zone, struct page *page,
> if (pages >= (1 << (pageblock_order-1)) ||
> page_group_by_mobility_disabled)
> set_pageblock_migratetype(page, start_type);
> -
> - return start_type;
> }
> -
> - return fallback_type;
> }
>
> /* Remove an element from the buddy allocator from the fallback list */
> @@ -1121,14 +1102,15 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
> struct free_area *area;
> unsigned int current_order;
> struct page *page;
> - int migratetype, new_type, i;
>
> /* Find the largest possible block of pages in the other list */
> for (current_order = MAX_ORDER-1;
> current_order >= order && current_order <= MAX_ORDER-1;
> --current_order) {
> + int i;
> for (i = 0;; i++) {
> - migratetype = fallbacks[start_migratetype][i];
> + int migratetype = fallbacks[start_migratetype][i];
> + int buddy_type = start_migratetype;
>
> /* MIGRATE_RESERVE handled later if necessary */
> if (migratetype == MIGRATE_RESERVE)
> @@ -1142,22 +1124,36 @@ __rmqueue_fallback(struct zone *zone, unsigned int order, int start_migratetype)
> struct page, lru);
> area->nr_free--;
>
> - new_type = try_to_steal_freepages(zone, page,
> - start_migratetype,
> - migratetype);
> + if (!is_migrate_cma(migratetype)) {
> + try_to_steal_freepages(zone, page,
> + start_migratetype,
> + migratetype);
> + } else {
> + /*
> + * When borrowing from MIGRATE_CMA, we need to
> + * release the excess buddy pages to CMA
> + * itself, and we do not try to steal extra
> + * free pages.
> + */
> + buddy_type = migratetype;
> + }
>
> /* Remove the page from the freelists */
> list_del(&page->lru);
> rmv_page_order(page);
>
> expand(zone, page, order, current_order, area,
> - new_type);
> - /* The freepage_migratetype may differ from pageblock's
> + buddy_type);
> +
> + /*
> + * The freepage_migratetype may differ from pageblock's
> * migratetype depending on the decisions in
> - * try_to_steal_freepages. This is OK as long as it does
> - * not differ for MIGRATE_CMA type.
> + * try_to_steal_freepages(). This is OK as long as it
> + * does not differ for MIGRATE_CMA pageblocks. For CMA
> + * we need to make sure unallocated pages flushed from
> + * pcp lists are returned to the correct freelist.
> */
> - set_freepage_migratetype(page, new_type);
> + set_freepage_migratetype(page, buddy_type);
>
> trace_mm_page_alloc_extfrag(page, order, current_order,
> start_migratetype, migratetype);
> --
> 2.1.2
>
> --
> 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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks
2014-12-15 7:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Joonsoo Kim
@ 2014-12-15 9:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-16 2:54 ` Joonsoo Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2014-12-15 9:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joonsoo Kim
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
David Rientjes, Johannes Weiner, Kirill A. Shutemov,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Minchan Kim,
Rik van Riel, Zhang Yanfei
On 12/15/2014 08:50 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> Changes since v1:
>> o Reorder patch 2 and 3, Cc stable for patch 1
>> o Fix tracepoint in patch 1 (Joonsoo Kim)
>> o Cleanup in patch 2 (suggested by Minchan Kim)
>> o Improved comments and changelogs per Minchan and Mel.
>> o Considered /proc/pagetypeinfo in evaluation with 3.18 as baseline
>>
>> When studying page stealing, I noticed some weird looking decisions in
>> try_to_steal_freepages(). The first I assume is a bug (Patch 1), the following
>> two patches were driven by evaluation.
>>
>> Testing was done with stress-highalloc of mmtests, using the
>> mm_page_alloc_extfrag tracepoint and postprocessing to get counts of how often
>> page stealing occurs for individual migratetypes, and what migratetypes are
>> used for fallbacks. Arguably, the worst case of page stealing is when
>> UNMOVABLE allocation steals from MOVABLE pageblock. RECLAIMABLE allocation
>> stealing from MOVABLE allocation is also not ideal, so the goal is to minimize
>> these two cases.
>>
>> For some reason, the first patch increased the number of page stealing events
>> for MOVABLE allocations in the former evaluation with 3.17-rc7 + compaction
>> patches. In theory these events are not as bad, and the second patch does more
>> than just to correct this. In v2 evaluation based on 3.18, the weird result
>> was gone completely.
>>
>> In v2 I also checked if /proc/pagetypeinfo has shown an increase of the number
>> of unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks during and after the test, and it didn't.
>> The test was repeated 25 times with reboot only after each 5 to show
>> longer-term differences in the state of the system, which also wasn't the case.
>>
>> Extfrag events summed over first iteration after reboot (5 repeats)
>> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
>> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
>> Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
>> Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
>> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
>> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
>> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
>> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
>> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
>>
>> Compared to v1 this looks like a regression for patch 1 wrt unmovable events,
>> but I blame noise and less repeats (it was 10 in v1). On the other hand, the
>> the mysterious increase in movable allocation events in v1 is gone (due to
>> different baseline?)
>
> Hmm... the result on patch 2 looks odd.
> Because you reorder patches, patch 2 have some effects on unmovable
> stealing and I expect that 'Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable' decreases.
> But, the result looks not. Is there any reason you think?
Hm, I don't see any obvious reason.
> And, could you share compaction success rate and allocation success
> rate on each iteration? In fact, reducing Extfrag event isn't our goal.
> It is natural result of this patchset because we steal pages more
> aggressively. Our utimate goal is to make the system less fragmented
> and to get more high order freepage, so I'd like to know this results.
I don't think there's much significant difference. Could be a limitation
of the benchmark. But even if there's no difference, it means the reduction
of fragmenting events at least saves time on allocations.
But you'll see that for the long-term fragmentation damage, we still have
long way to go...
Iteration 1 after reboot:
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
Success 1 Min 30.00 ( 0.00%) 33.00 (-10.00%) 37.00 (-23.33%) 35.00 (-16.67%)
Success 1 Mean 38.60 ( 0.00%) 37.60 ( 2.59%) 41.00 ( -6.22%) 38.40 ( 0.52%)
Success 1 Max 44.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( -9.09%) 48.00 ( -9.09%) 41.00 ( 6.82%)
Success 2 Min 29.00 ( 0.00%) 34.00 (-17.24%) 36.00 (-24.14%) 36.00 (-24.14%)
Success 2 Mean 40.40 ( 0.00%) 38.20 ( 5.45%) 41.40 ( -2.48%) 39.20 ( 2.97%)
Success 2 Max 46.00 ( 0.00%) 49.00 ( -6.52%) 49.00 ( -6.52%) 43.00 ( 6.52%)
Success 3 Min 83.00 ( 0.00%) 85.00 ( -2.41%) 84.00 ( -1.20%) 84.00 ( -1.20%)
Success 3 Mean 84.80 ( 0.00%) 85.60 ( -0.94%) 84.80 ( 0.00%) 84.60 ( 0.24%)
Success 3 Max 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
User 6791.07 6777.88 6751.22 6746.16
System 1060.23 1062.19 1059.84 1056.64
Elapsed 2185.24 2228.84 2199.19 2191.76
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
Minor Faults 198068318 197804720 198505004 198482880
Major Faults 501 498 496 494
Swap Ins 46 48 11 11
Swap Outs 2634 2651 2086 1823
Allocation stalls 7323 7117 5970 6309
DMA allocs 97 100 134 149
DMA32 allocs 124755567 124289054 124952178 125027538
Normal allocs 59002004 59130550 59196697 59072554
Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
Direct pages scanned 392695 414090 328733 378168
Kswapd pages scanned 2214189 2207526 2311158 2262640
Kswapd pages reclaimed 2208768 2202066 2305968 2257781
Direct pages reclaimed 391894 413055 328084 377401
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1002.608 1000.655 1052.761 1017.141
Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Direct velocity 177.816 187.704 149.742 170.001
Percentage direct scans 15% 15% 12% 14%
Zone normal velocity 387.887 388.497 387.885 376.085
Zone dma32 velocity 792.526 799.852 814.604 811.042
Zone dma velocity 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014
Page writes by reclaim 2809.200 2858.800 2275.200 2011.600
Page writes file 174 207 188 188
Page writes anon 2634 2651 2086 1823
Page reclaim immediate 1324 1426 1392 1323
Sector Reads 4742548 4728116 4804282 4801711
Sector Writes 12763776 12706886 12803965 12789351
Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
Slabs scanned 1830284 1842439 1863519 1859570
Direct inode steals 15479 14389 15666 14788
Kswapd inode steals 40155 40175 41128 42042
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
THP fault alloc 264 204 254 232
THP collapse alloc 505 466 458 530
THP splits 15 11 15 13
THP fault fallback 5 43 28 45
THP collapse fail 17 20 18 16
Compaction stalls 2390 2333 2258 2276
Compaction success 562 538 563 551
Compaction failures 1827 1794 1694 1724
Page migrate success 4263304 4045115 3862467 4028949
Page migrate failure 24367 16795 16593 17187
Compaction pages isolated 8732910 8286990 7906654 8249551
Compaction migrate scanned 132231829 123280022 130556442 132772831
Compaction free scanned 352820881 350707097 321784049 332591031
Compaction cost 5517 5219 5073 5268
NUMA alloc hit 181237842 180977135 181620892 181590876
NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
NUMA alloc local 181237842 180977135 181620892 181590876
NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
Iteration 2 after reboot:
Yup, those success rates suck. Wonder why. Could it be that there's still
long-term pollution by unmovable allocations? That wouldn't show on pagetypeinfo.
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
Success 1 Min 9.00 ( 0.00%) 13.00 (-44.44%) 16.00 (-77.78%) 14.00 (-55.56%)
Success 1 Mean 14.80 ( 0.00%) 18.80 (-27.03%) 20.80 (-40.54%) 18.00 (-21.62%)
Success 1 Max 20.00 ( 0.00%) 25.00 (-25.00%) 28.00 (-40.00%) 23.00 (-15.00%)
Success 2 Min 12.00 ( 0.00%) 20.00 (-66.67%) 23.00 (-91.67%) 19.00 (-58.33%)
Success 2 Mean 19.00 ( 0.00%) 22.60 (-18.95%) 26.00 (-36.84%) 22.40 (-17.89%)
Success 2 Max 25.00 ( 0.00%) 25.00 ( 0.00%) 31.00 (-24.00%) 29.00 (-16.00%)
Success 3 Min 80.00 ( 0.00%) 82.00 ( -2.50%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( -1.25%)
Success 3 Mean 82.20 ( 0.00%) 82.40 ( -0.24%) 81.00 ( 1.46%) 81.60 ( 0.73%)
Success 3 Max 84.00 ( 0.00%) 83.00 ( 1.19%) 82.00 ( 2.38%) 83.00 ( 1.19%)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
User 7004.37 6967.43 6956.83 6963.24
System 1055.53 1059.64 1057.10 1051.08
Elapsed 2055.20 2221.28 2083.53 2064.32
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
Minor Faults 197246131 197529492 197805972 197409194
Major Faults 398 466 445 384
Swap Ins 23 59 21 13
Swap Outs 929 891 1046 1168
Allocation stalls 4968 4816 4601 4524
DMA allocs 100 102 168 141
DMA32 allocs 123655788 124150784 124204923 124032735
Normal allocs 58759141 58579320 58833935 58598639
Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
Direct pages scanned 225672 232579 201836 196913
Kswapd pages scanned 2026634 2073933 2064589 2076511
Kswapd pages reclaimed 2022720 2070878 2061164 2072427
Direct pages reclaimed 224845 231656 201126 195774
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1003.135 1018.907 983.086 1005.648
Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Direct velocity 111.702 114.265 96.108 95.365
Percentage direct scans 10% 10% 8% 8%
Zone normal velocity 363.005 361.000 351.299 353.425
Zone dma32 velocity 751.821 772.159 727.879 747.573
Zone dma velocity 0.012 0.012 0.016 0.015
Page writes by reclaim 1026.800 1018.600 1189.000 1389.600
Page writes file 97 126 142 221
Page writes anon 929 891 1046 1168
Page reclaim immediate 2368 1680 1750 2717
Sector Reads 4459287 4515880 4549344 4521904
Sector Writes 12631248 12678313 12707720 12655388
Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
Slabs scanned 1955590 1889819 2091926 1975239
Direct inode steals 19201 17306 21977 17822
Kswapd inode steals 172857 145147 205146 174587
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
THP fault alloc 232 244 260 243
THP collapse alloc 340 302 332 364
THP splits 12 13 12 12
THP fault fallback 6 5 0 1
THP collapse fail 24 25 23 23
Compaction stalls 1795 1812 1891 1719
Compaction success 287 315 348 303
Compaction failures 1508 1497 1543 1415
Page migrate success 3660128 3527715 3695452 3482429
Page migrate failure 10746 10903 9716 9459
Compaction pages isolated 7468799 7198253 7541268 7113943
Compaction migrate scanned 69039767 76820644 86198799 76076461
Compaction free scanned 296178645 293352136 292601706 264948833
Compaction cost 4424 4336 4582 4282
NUMA alloc hit 180446569 180703255 180947345 180593203
NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
NUMA alloc local 180446569 180703255 180947345 180593203
NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
Page alloc extfrag event 1960806 1682705 868136 602097
Extfrag fragmenting 1960268 1682153 867624 601608
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14373 13973 12275 2158
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 10465 7233 8814 1821
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2268 1244 1122 1284
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2092 1010 940 1033
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1943627 1666936 854227 598166
Iteration 3 after reboot. Again a bit worse.
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
Success 1 Min 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) 16.00 (-33.33%) 13.00 ( -8.33%)
Success 1 Mean 17.20 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( -4.65%) 18.40 ( -6.98%) 17.20 ( 0.00%)
Success 1 Max 25.00 ( 0.00%) 23.00 ( 8.00%) 22.00 ( 12.00%) 21.00 ( 16.00%)
Success 2 Min 17.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 ( 0.00%) 21.00 (-23.53%) 18.00 ( -5.88%)
Success 2 Mean 21.20 ( 0.00%) 22.60 ( -6.60%) 24.00 (-13.21%) 22.40 ( -5.66%)
Success 2 Max 28.00 ( 0.00%) 28.00 ( 0.00%) 27.00 ( 3.57%) 25.00 ( 10.71%)
Success 3 Min 77.00 ( 0.00%) 78.00 ( -1.30%) 78.00 ( -1.30%) 79.00 ( -2.60%)
Success 3 Mean 78.60 ( 0.00%) 79.40 ( -1.02%) 79.40 ( -1.02%) 79.60 ( -1.27%)
Success 3 Max 80.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( -1.25%) 81.00 ( -1.25%) 81.00 ( -1.25%)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
User 6969.43 6943.72 6971.01 6957.16
System 1052.91 1057.03 1056.81 1051.51
Elapsed 2075.96 2137.93 2066.80 2050.85
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
Minor Faults 198002094 197799251 197671808 197131275
Major Faults 481 452 430 440
Swap Ins 84 75 58 69
Swap Outs 485 512 617 797
Allocation stalls 5130 4895 4369 4198
DMA allocs 131 112 168 147
DMA32 allocs 124297093 124088280 124075970 123837281
Normal allocs 58843460 58836194 58764835 58477182
Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
Direct pages scanned 215029 207548 161207 156133
Kswapd pages scanned 2063367 2056503 2083316 2064295
Kswapd pages reclaimed 2060617 2053632 2080418 2061267
Direct pages reclaimed 214064 206675 160724 155420
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1016.447 1001.068 1000.844 994.439
Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Direct velocity 105.927 101.031 77.446 75.214
Percentage direct scans 9% 9% 7% 7%
Zone normal velocity 362.943 352.065 341.152 336.018
Zone dma32 velocity 759.419 750.021 737.124 733.616
Zone dma velocity 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.020
Page writes by reclaim 593.000 648.200 718.200 1011.600
Page writes file 107 135 101 214
Page writes anon 485 512 617 797
Page reclaim immediate 1496 1554 1226 1362
Sector Reads 4509982 4470464 4521328 4490060
Sector Writes 12730210 12693418 12678674 12570993
Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
Slabs scanned 2004683 1996351 2093517 2070616
Direct inode steals 22399 22594 21935 19771
Kswapd inode steals 177424 186779 221443 220300
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
THP fault alloc 249 253 249 227
THP collapse alloc 401 309 276 326
THP splits 13 14 12 13
THP fault fallback 14 5 0 0
THP collapse fail 20 24 26 24
Compaction stalls 1864 1896 1882 1804
Compaction success 326 332 321 294
Compaction failures 1537 1564 1560 1510
Page migrate success 3779905 3591736 3710886 3603691
Page migrate failure 10248 12087 9537 9811
Compaction pages isolated 7725248 7336155 7570704 7354030
Compaction migrate scanned 81291471 81714847 82830202 79307459
Compaction free scanned 285896115 288986961 286083443 276906989
Compaction cost 4639 4439 4575 4435
NUMA alloc hit 181116213 180919428 180842690 180328118
NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
NUMA alloc local 181116213 180919428 180842690 180328118
NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
Page alloc extfrag event 1485930 1858687 831967 777544
Extfrag fragmenting 1485545 1858248 831574 777153
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14710 15110 10055 3106
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 8294 8117 7059 2709
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2253 1292 1258 1239
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2070 1050 1050 972
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1468582 1841846 820261 772808
Iteration 4:
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
Success 1 Min 11.00 ( 0.00%) 15.00 (-36.36%) 15.00 (-36.36%) 11.00 ( 0.00%)
Success 1 Mean 14.60 ( 0.00%) 17.20 (-17.81%) 18.80 (-28.77%) 16.80 (-15.07%)
Success 1 Max 19.00 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 5.26%) 25.00 (-31.58%) 28.00 (-47.37%)
Success 2 Min 16.00 ( 0.00%) 16.00 ( 0.00%) 22.00 (-37.50%) 17.00 ( -6.25%)
Success 2 Mean 18.80 ( 0.00%) 22.40 (-19.15%) 24.20 (-28.72%) 22.40 (-19.15%)
Success 2 Max 21.00 ( 0.00%) 28.00 (-33.33%) 27.00 (-28.57%) 31.00 (-47.62%)
Success 3 Min 76.00 ( 0.00%) 77.00 ( -1.32%) 78.00 ( -2.63%) 77.00 ( -1.32%)
Success 3 Mean 77.60 ( 0.00%) 77.80 ( -0.26%) 78.80 ( -1.55%) 78.40 ( -1.03%)
Success 3 Max 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
User 7014.11 6945.27 6957.40 6963.31
System 1055.82 1054.82 1053.90 1055.12
Elapsed 2058.53 2058.56 2075.28 2048.52
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
Minor Faults 197873509 198398469 197895081 197535790
Major Faults 407 419 427 402
Swap Ins 37 50 37 30
Swap Outs 338 371 439 388
Allocation stalls 5195 4652 4513 4325
DMA allocs 99 107 145 133
DMA32 allocs 124092064 124319488 124167239 123944556
Normal allocs 58773824 59100526 58883054 58700006
Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
Direct pages scanned 216998 190534 174921 155459
Kswapd pages scanned 2040693 2087853 2082845 2077534
Kswapd pages reclaimed 2037419 2085208 2080120 2074709
Direct pages reclaimed 216518 189914 174192 154957
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1000.384 996.128 991.642 1026.049
Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Direct velocity 106.377 90.905 83.280 76.778
Percentage direct scans 9% 8% 7% 6%
Zone normal velocity 347.776 345.668 342.893 350.841
Zone dma32 velocity 758.972 741.345 732.009 751.972
Zone dma velocity 0.013 0.020 0.020 0.015
Page writes by reclaim 399.800 452.800 631.400 568.000
Page writes file 61 81 191 179
Page writes anon 338 371 439 388
Page reclaim immediate 1704 1090 1217 1245
Sector Reads 4461358 4478920 4516170 4505277
Sector Writes 12698146 12785845 12720364 12645422
Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
Slabs scanned 1976614 1994349 2077089 2081061
Direct inode steals 22948 15954 17649 20023
Kswapd inode steals 175854 186992 208169 216263
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
THP fault alloc 246 262 264 240
THP collapse alloc 255 265 327 310
THP splits 14 13 13 13
THP fault fallback 5 15 0 2
THP collapse fail 27 27 25 25
Compaction stalls 1778 1873 1859 1824
Compaction success 275 318 319 299
Compaction failures 1502 1555 1540 1524
Page migrate success 3633014 3657877 3634074 3598224
Page migrate failure 9804 8803 9796 9708
Compaction pages isolated 7420349 7474113 7419569 7342056
Compaction migrate scanned 72131019 83649881 82656970 81781759
Compaction free scanned 285190682 294019483 273748735 275195864
Compaction cost 4417 4524 4491 4447
NUMA alloc hit 180976412 181453188 181021959 180675563
NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
NUMA alloc local 180976412 181453188 181021959 180675563
NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
Page alloc extfrag event 1952436 1661151 738877 773695
Extfrag fragmenting 1952086 1660760 738488 773341
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 20531 14360 7780 8540
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 14937 7515 4644 7982
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2372 1458 1559 1349
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2163 1184 1229 1084
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1929183 1644942 729149 763452
Iteration 5:
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
Success 1 Min 11.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( -9.09%) 12.00 ( -9.09%) 13.00 (-18.18%)
Success 1 Mean 14.80 ( 0.00%) 14.80 ( 0.00%) 17.60 (-18.92%) 15.00 ( -1.35%)
Success 1 Max 19.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 ( 10.53%) 24.00 (-26.32%) 18.00 ( 5.26%)
Success 2 Min 14.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 (-21.43%) 18.00 (-28.57%) 19.00 (-35.71%)
Success 2 Mean 18.80 ( 0.00%) 19.80 ( -5.32%) 23.20 (-23.40%) 21.20 (-12.77%)
Success 2 Max 24.00 ( 0.00%) 22.00 ( 8.33%) 29.00 (-20.83%) 24.00 ( 0.00%)
Success 3 Min 75.00 ( 0.00%) 76.00 ( -1.33%) 76.00 ( -1.33%) 75.00 ( 0.00%)
Success 3 Mean 76.80 ( 0.00%) 77.20 ( -0.52%) 77.20 ( -0.52%) 77.00 ( -0.26%)
Success 3 Max 78.00 ( 0.00%) 79.00 ( -1.28%) 79.00 ( -1.28%) 78.00 ( 0.00%)
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
User 7010.91 6975.75 6915.14 6970.45
System 1055.83 1056.19 1053.80 1052.33
Elapsed 2052.31 2048.28 2050.12 2053.89
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
Minor Faults 197030140 197319524 197489685 197695270
Major Faults 429 411 415 390
Swap Ins 49 55 36 30
Swap Outs 305 228 332 381
Allocation stalls 5108 4659 4490 4328
DMA allocs 99 134 141 122
DMA32 allocs 123508440 123843605 123873130 124099102
Normal allocs 58622667 58573504 58761770 58652867
Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
Direct pages scanned 220984 190063 158418 149760
Kswapd pages scanned 2043404 2049188 2073308 2067291
Kswapd pages reclaimed 2031444 2046517 2067186 2064528
Direct pages reclaimed 218557 189225 157980 149287
Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
Kswapd velocity 1012.674 1015.123 1022.432 1008.494
Direct efficiency 98% 99% 99% 99%
Direct velocity 109.516 94.153 78.122 73.058
Percentage direct scans 9% 8% 7% 6%
Zone normal velocity 354.483 355.563 345.106 347.632
Zone dma32 velocity 767.696 753.701 755.430 733.904
Zone dma velocity 0.011 0.013 0.018 0.016
Page writes by reclaim 431.000 315.200 527.200 540.000
Page writes file 125 87 194 158
Page writes anon 305 228 332 381
Page reclaim immediate 12115 1719 4469 1280
Sector Reads 4487948 4453748 4502543 4490908
Sector Writes 12621033 12653866 12659975 12687881
Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
Slabs scanned 1956286 1958388 2088099 2073000
Direct inode steals 15390 20539 24285 29811
Kswapd inode steals 185143 183428 219000 210892
Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
THP fault alloc 230 248 243 253
THP collapse alloc 278 335 340 280
THP splits 12 13 12 12
THP fault fallback 5 2 2 1
THP collapse fail 25 25 23 26
Compaction stalls 1780 1797 1877 1859
Compaction success 283 281 324 305
Compaction failures 1497 1516 1553 1554
Page migrate success 3670577 3519806 3645951 3783349
Page migrate failure 8559 9771 11186 9559
Compaction pages isolated 7495004 7189748 7444082 7722521
Compaction migrate scanned 75257058 74119179 84933954 80371020
Compaction free scanned 282720327 290434359 282089729 300987492
Compaction cost 4479 4309 4520 4636
NUMA alloc hit 180250566 180484746 180642086 180827624
NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
NUMA alloc local 180250566 180484746 180642086 180827624
NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
WARNING: CPU:3 [LOST 7268 EVENTS]
WARNING: CPU:2 [LOST 10396 EVENTS]
- those were in 0-nothp-5, that's why it looks so good
- on the other hand, events for 1-nothp-5 look absurdly high
3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
Page alloc extfrag event 1532339 2043456 659360 824401
Extfrag fragmenting 1532007 2043095 658942 824041
Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 12148 143580 8546 3232
Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 9266 139803 5350 2915
Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2159 1374 1319 1298
Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 1988 1165 1047 1096
Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1517700 1898141 649077 819511
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks
2014-12-15 9:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
@ 2014-12-16 2:54 ` Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-16 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Joonsoo Kim @ 2014-12-16 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlastimil Babka
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
David Rientjes, Johannes Weiner, Kirill A. Shutemov,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Minchan Kim,
Rik van Riel, Zhang Yanfei
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:05:22AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 08:50 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> Changes since v1:
> >> o Reorder patch 2 and 3, Cc stable for patch 1
> >> o Fix tracepoint in patch 1 (Joonsoo Kim)
> >> o Cleanup in patch 2 (suggested by Minchan Kim)
> >> o Improved comments and changelogs per Minchan and Mel.
> >> o Considered /proc/pagetypeinfo in evaluation with 3.18 as baseline
> >>
> >> When studying page stealing, I noticed some weird looking decisions in
> >> try_to_steal_freepages(). The first I assume is a bug (Patch 1), the following
> >> two patches were driven by evaluation.
> >>
> >> Testing was done with stress-highalloc of mmtests, using the
> >> mm_page_alloc_extfrag tracepoint and postprocessing to get counts of how often
> >> page stealing occurs for individual migratetypes, and what migratetypes are
> >> used for fallbacks. Arguably, the worst case of page stealing is when
> >> UNMOVABLE allocation steals from MOVABLE pageblock. RECLAIMABLE allocation
> >> stealing from MOVABLE allocation is also not ideal, so the goal is to minimize
> >> these two cases.
> >>
> >> For some reason, the first patch increased the number of page stealing events
> >> for MOVABLE allocations in the former evaluation with 3.17-rc7 + compaction
> >> patches. In theory these events are not as bad, and the second patch does more
> >> than just to correct this. In v2 evaluation based on 3.18, the weird result
> >> was gone completely.
> >>
> >> In v2 I also checked if /proc/pagetypeinfo has shown an increase of the number
> >> of unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks during and after the test, and it didn't.
> >> The test was repeated 25 times with reboot only after each 5 to show
> >> longer-term differences in the state of the system, which also wasn't the case.
> >>
> >> Extfrag events summed over first iteration after reboot (5 repeats)
> >> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> >> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> >> Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
> >> Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
> >> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
> >> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
> >> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
> >> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
> >> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
> >>
> >> Compared to v1 this looks like a regression for patch 1 wrt unmovable events,
> >> but I blame noise and less repeats (it was 10 in v1). On the other hand, the
> >> the mysterious increase in movable allocation events in v1 is gone (due to
> >> different baseline?)
> >
> > Hmm... the result on patch 2 looks odd.
> > Because you reorder patches, patch 2 have some effects on unmovable
> > stealing and I expect that 'Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable' decreases.
> > But, the result looks not. Is there any reason you think?
>
> Hm, I don't see any obvious reason.
>
> > And, could you share compaction success rate and allocation success
> > rate on each iteration? In fact, reducing Extfrag event isn't our goal.
> > It is natural result of this patchset because we steal pages more
> > aggressively. Our utimate goal is to make the system less fragmented
> > and to get more high order freepage, so I'd like to know this results.
>
> I don't think there's much significant difference. Could be a limitation
> of the benchmark. But even if there's no difference, it means the reduction
> of fragmenting events at least saves time on allocations.
Hmm... Allocation success rate of 3-nothp-N on phase 1,2 shows minor degradation
from 2-nothp-N and compaction success rate also decreases. Isn't it?
I think that allocation success rate on phase 1 is important because
workload in phase 1 mostly resemble real world scenario. Do you have
any idea why this happens?
Thanks.
> But you'll see that for the long-term fragmentation damage, we still have
> long way to go...
>
> Iteration 1 after reboot:
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> Success 1 Min 30.00 ( 0.00%) 33.00 (-10.00%) 37.00 (-23.33%) 35.00 (-16.67%)
> Success 1 Mean 38.60 ( 0.00%) 37.60 ( 2.59%) 41.00 ( -6.22%) 38.40 ( 0.52%)
> Success 1 Max 44.00 ( 0.00%) 48.00 ( -9.09%) 48.00 ( -9.09%) 41.00 ( 6.82%)
> Success 2 Min 29.00 ( 0.00%) 34.00 (-17.24%) 36.00 (-24.14%) 36.00 (-24.14%)
> Success 2 Mean 40.40 ( 0.00%) 38.20 ( 5.45%) 41.40 ( -2.48%) 39.20 ( 2.97%)
> Success 2 Max 46.00 ( 0.00%) 49.00 ( -6.52%) 49.00 ( -6.52%) 43.00 ( 6.52%)
> Success 3 Min 83.00 ( 0.00%) 85.00 ( -2.41%) 84.00 ( -1.20%) 84.00 ( -1.20%)
> Success 3 Mean 84.80 ( 0.00%) 85.60 ( -0.94%) 84.80 ( 0.00%) 84.60 ( 0.24%)
> Success 3 Max 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%) 86.00 ( 0.00%)
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> User 6791.07 6777.88 6751.22 6746.16
> System 1060.23 1062.19 1059.84 1056.64
> Elapsed 2185.24 2228.84 2199.19 2191.76
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> Minor Faults 198068318 197804720 198505004 198482880
> Major Faults 501 498 496 494
> Swap Ins 46 48 11 11
> Swap Outs 2634 2651 2086 1823
> Allocation stalls 7323 7117 5970 6309
> DMA allocs 97 100 134 149
> DMA32 allocs 124755567 124289054 124952178 125027538
> Normal allocs 59002004 59130550 59196697 59072554
> Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
> Direct pages scanned 392695 414090 328733 378168
> Kswapd pages scanned 2214189 2207526 2311158 2262640
> Kswapd pages reclaimed 2208768 2202066 2305968 2257781
> Direct pages reclaimed 391894 413055 328084 377401
> Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Kswapd velocity 1002.608 1000.655 1052.761 1017.141
> Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Direct velocity 177.816 187.704 149.742 170.001
> Percentage direct scans 15% 15% 12% 14%
> Zone normal velocity 387.887 388.497 387.885 376.085
> Zone dma32 velocity 792.526 799.852 814.604 811.042
> Zone dma velocity 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.014
> Page writes by reclaim 2809.200 2858.800 2275.200 2011.600
> Page writes file 174 207 188 188
> Page writes anon 2634 2651 2086 1823
> Page reclaim immediate 1324 1426 1392 1323
> Sector Reads 4742548 4728116 4804282 4801711
> Sector Writes 12763776 12706886 12803965 12789351
> Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
> Slabs scanned 1830284 1842439 1863519 1859570
> Direct inode steals 15479 14389 15666 14788
> Kswapd inode steals 40155 40175 41128 42042
> Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
> THP fault alloc 264 204 254 232
> THP collapse alloc 505 466 458 530
> THP splits 15 11 15 13
> THP fault fallback 5 43 28 45
> THP collapse fail 17 20 18 16
> Compaction stalls 2390 2333 2258 2276
> Compaction success 562 538 563 551
> Compaction failures 1827 1794 1694 1724
> Page migrate success 4263304 4045115 3862467 4028949
> Page migrate failure 24367 16795 16593 17187
> Compaction pages isolated 8732910 8286990 7906654 8249551
> Compaction migrate scanned 132231829 123280022 130556442 132772831
> Compaction free scanned 352820881 350707097 321784049 332591031
> Compaction cost 5517 5219 5073 5268
> NUMA alloc hit 181237842 180977135 181620892 181590876
> NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
> NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
> NUMA alloc local 181237842 180977135 181620892 181590876
> NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
> NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
> AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
> Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
> Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
>
>
>
> Iteration 2 after reboot:
> Yup, those success rates suck. Wonder why. Could it be that there's still
> long-term pollution by unmovable allocations? That wouldn't show on pagetypeinfo.
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
> Success 1 Min 9.00 ( 0.00%) 13.00 (-44.44%) 16.00 (-77.78%) 14.00 (-55.56%)
> Success 1 Mean 14.80 ( 0.00%) 18.80 (-27.03%) 20.80 (-40.54%) 18.00 (-21.62%)
> Success 1 Max 20.00 ( 0.00%) 25.00 (-25.00%) 28.00 (-40.00%) 23.00 (-15.00%)
> Success 2 Min 12.00 ( 0.00%) 20.00 (-66.67%) 23.00 (-91.67%) 19.00 (-58.33%)
> Success 2 Mean 19.00 ( 0.00%) 22.60 (-18.95%) 26.00 (-36.84%) 22.40 (-17.89%)
> Success 2 Max 25.00 ( 0.00%) 25.00 ( 0.00%) 31.00 (-24.00%) 29.00 (-16.00%)
> Success 3 Min 80.00 ( 0.00%) 82.00 ( -2.50%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( -1.25%)
> Success 3 Mean 82.20 ( 0.00%) 82.40 ( -0.24%) 81.00 ( 1.46%) 81.60 ( 0.73%)
> Success 3 Max 84.00 ( 0.00%) 83.00 ( 1.19%) 82.00 ( 2.38%) 83.00 ( 1.19%)
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
> User 7004.37 6967.43 6956.83 6963.24
> System 1055.53 1059.64 1057.10 1051.08
> Elapsed 2055.20 2221.28 2083.53 2064.32
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
> Minor Faults 197246131 197529492 197805972 197409194
> Major Faults 398 466 445 384
> Swap Ins 23 59 21 13
> Swap Outs 929 891 1046 1168
> Allocation stalls 4968 4816 4601 4524
> DMA allocs 100 102 168 141
> DMA32 allocs 123655788 124150784 124204923 124032735
> Normal allocs 58759141 58579320 58833935 58598639
> Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
> Direct pages scanned 225672 232579 201836 196913
> Kswapd pages scanned 2026634 2073933 2064589 2076511
> Kswapd pages reclaimed 2022720 2070878 2061164 2072427
> Direct pages reclaimed 224845 231656 201126 195774
> Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Kswapd velocity 1003.135 1018.907 983.086 1005.648
> Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Direct velocity 111.702 114.265 96.108 95.365
> Percentage direct scans 10% 10% 8% 8%
> Zone normal velocity 363.005 361.000 351.299 353.425
> Zone dma32 velocity 751.821 772.159 727.879 747.573
> Zone dma velocity 0.012 0.012 0.016 0.015
> Page writes by reclaim 1026.800 1018.600 1189.000 1389.600
> Page writes file 97 126 142 221
> Page writes anon 929 891 1046 1168
> Page reclaim immediate 2368 1680 1750 2717
> Sector Reads 4459287 4515880 4549344 4521904
> Sector Writes 12631248 12678313 12707720 12655388
> Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
> Slabs scanned 1955590 1889819 2091926 1975239
> Direct inode steals 19201 17306 21977 17822
> Kswapd inode steals 172857 145147 205146 174587
> Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
> THP fault alloc 232 244 260 243
> THP collapse alloc 340 302 332 364
> THP splits 12 13 12 12
> THP fault fallback 6 5 0 1
> THP collapse fail 24 25 23 23
> Compaction stalls 1795 1812 1891 1719
> Compaction success 287 315 348 303
> Compaction failures 1508 1497 1543 1415
> Page migrate success 3660128 3527715 3695452 3482429
> Page migrate failure 10746 10903 9716 9459
> Compaction pages isolated 7468799 7198253 7541268 7113943
> Compaction migrate scanned 69039767 76820644 86198799 76076461
> Compaction free scanned 296178645 293352136 292601706 264948833
> Compaction cost 4424 4336 4582 4282
> NUMA alloc hit 180446569 180703255 180947345 180593203
> NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
> NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
> NUMA alloc local 180446569 180703255 180947345 180593203
> NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
> NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
> AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-2 1-nothp-2 2-nothp-2 3-nothp-2
> Page alloc extfrag event 1960806 1682705 868136 602097
> Extfrag fragmenting 1960268 1682153 867624 601608
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14373 13973 12275 2158
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 10465 7233 8814 1821
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2268 1244 1122 1284
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2092 1010 940 1033
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1943627 1666936 854227 598166
>
>
> Iteration 3 after reboot. Again a bit worse.
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
> Success 1 Min 12.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( 0.00%) 16.00 (-33.33%) 13.00 ( -8.33%)
> Success 1 Mean 17.20 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( -4.65%) 18.40 ( -6.98%) 17.20 ( 0.00%)
> Success 1 Max 25.00 ( 0.00%) 23.00 ( 8.00%) 22.00 ( 12.00%) 21.00 ( 16.00%)
> Success 2 Min 17.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 ( 0.00%) 21.00 (-23.53%) 18.00 ( -5.88%)
> Success 2 Mean 21.20 ( 0.00%) 22.60 ( -6.60%) 24.00 (-13.21%) 22.40 ( -5.66%)
> Success 2 Max 28.00 ( 0.00%) 28.00 ( 0.00%) 27.00 ( 3.57%) 25.00 ( 10.71%)
> Success 3 Min 77.00 ( 0.00%) 78.00 ( -1.30%) 78.00 ( -1.30%) 79.00 ( -2.60%)
> Success 3 Mean 78.60 ( 0.00%) 79.40 ( -1.02%) 79.40 ( -1.02%) 79.60 ( -1.27%)
> Success 3 Max 80.00 ( 0.00%) 81.00 ( -1.25%) 81.00 ( -1.25%) 81.00 ( -1.25%)
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
> User 6969.43 6943.72 6971.01 6957.16
> System 1052.91 1057.03 1056.81 1051.51
> Elapsed 2075.96 2137.93 2066.80 2050.85
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
> Minor Faults 198002094 197799251 197671808 197131275
> Major Faults 481 452 430 440
> Swap Ins 84 75 58 69
> Swap Outs 485 512 617 797
> Allocation stalls 5130 4895 4369 4198
> DMA allocs 131 112 168 147
> DMA32 allocs 124297093 124088280 124075970 123837281
> Normal allocs 58843460 58836194 58764835 58477182
> Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
> Direct pages scanned 215029 207548 161207 156133
> Kswapd pages scanned 2063367 2056503 2083316 2064295
> Kswapd pages reclaimed 2060617 2053632 2080418 2061267
> Direct pages reclaimed 214064 206675 160724 155420
> Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Kswapd velocity 1016.447 1001.068 1000.844 994.439
> Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Direct velocity 105.927 101.031 77.446 75.214
> Percentage direct scans 9% 9% 7% 7%
> Zone normal velocity 362.943 352.065 341.152 336.018
> Zone dma32 velocity 759.419 750.021 737.124 733.616
> Zone dma velocity 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.020
> Page writes by reclaim 593.000 648.200 718.200 1011.600
> Page writes file 107 135 101 214
> Page writes anon 485 512 617 797
> Page reclaim immediate 1496 1554 1226 1362
> Sector Reads 4509982 4470464 4521328 4490060
> Sector Writes 12730210 12693418 12678674 12570993
> Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
> Slabs scanned 2004683 1996351 2093517 2070616
> Direct inode steals 22399 22594 21935 19771
> Kswapd inode steals 177424 186779 221443 220300
> Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
> THP fault alloc 249 253 249 227
> THP collapse alloc 401 309 276 326
> THP splits 13 14 12 13
> THP fault fallback 14 5 0 0
> THP collapse fail 20 24 26 24
> Compaction stalls 1864 1896 1882 1804
> Compaction success 326 332 321 294
> Compaction failures 1537 1564 1560 1510
> Page migrate success 3779905 3591736 3710886 3603691
> Page migrate failure 10248 12087 9537 9811
> Compaction pages isolated 7725248 7336155 7570704 7354030
> Compaction migrate scanned 81291471 81714847 82830202 79307459
> Compaction free scanned 285896115 288986961 286083443 276906989
> Compaction cost 4639 4439 4575 4435
> NUMA alloc hit 181116213 180919428 180842690 180328118
> NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
> NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
> NUMA alloc local 181116213 180919428 180842690 180328118
> NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
> NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
> AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-3 1-nothp-3 2-nothp-3 3-nothp-3
> Page alloc extfrag event 1485930 1858687 831967 777544
> Extfrag fragmenting 1485545 1858248 831574 777153
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 14710 15110 10055 3106
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 8294 8117 7059 2709
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2253 1292 1258 1239
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2070 1050 1050 972
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1468582 1841846 820261 772808
>
>
> Iteration 4:
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
> Success 1 Min 11.00 ( 0.00%) 15.00 (-36.36%) 15.00 (-36.36%) 11.00 ( 0.00%)
> Success 1 Mean 14.60 ( 0.00%) 17.20 (-17.81%) 18.80 (-28.77%) 16.80 (-15.07%)
> Success 1 Max 19.00 ( 0.00%) 18.00 ( 5.26%) 25.00 (-31.58%) 28.00 (-47.37%)
> Success 2 Min 16.00 ( 0.00%) 16.00 ( 0.00%) 22.00 (-37.50%) 17.00 ( -6.25%)
> Success 2 Mean 18.80 ( 0.00%) 22.40 (-19.15%) 24.20 (-28.72%) 22.40 (-19.15%)
> Success 2 Max 21.00 ( 0.00%) 28.00 (-33.33%) 27.00 (-28.57%) 31.00 (-47.62%)
> Success 3 Min 76.00 ( 0.00%) 77.00 ( -1.32%) 78.00 ( -2.63%) 77.00 ( -1.32%)
> Success 3 Mean 77.60 ( 0.00%) 77.80 ( -0.26%) 78.80 ( -1.55%) 78.40 ( -1.03%)
> Success 3 Max 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%) 80.00 ( 0.00%)
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
> User 7014.11 6945.27 6957.40 6963.31
> System 1055.82 1054.82 1053.90 1055.12
> Elapsed 2058.53 2058.56 2075.28 2048.52
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
> Minor Faults 197873509 198398469 197895081 197535790
> Major Faults 407 419 427 402
> Swap Ins 37 50 37 30
> Swap Outs 338 371 439 388
> Allocation stalls 5195 4652 4513 4325
> DMA allocs 99 107 145 133
> DMA32 allocs 124092064 124319488 124167239 123944556
> Normal allocs 58773824 59100526 58883054 58700006
> Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
> Direct pages scanned 216998 190534 174921 155459
> Kswapd pages scanned 2040693 2087853 2082845 2077534
> Kswapd pages reclaimed 2037419 2085208 2080120 2074709
> Direct pages reclaimed 216518 189914 174192 154957
> Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Kswapd velocity 1000.384 996.128 991.642 1026.049
> Direct efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Direct velocity 106.377 90.905 83.280 76.778
> Percentage direct scans 9% 8% 7% 6%
> Zone normal velocity 347.776 345.668 342.893 350.841
> Zone dma32 velocity 758.972 741.345 732.009 751.972
> Zone dma velocity 0.013 0.020 0.020 0.015
> Page writes by reclaim 399.800 452.800 631.400 568.000
> Page writes file 61 81 191 179
> Page writes anon 338 371 439 388
> Page reclaim immediate 1704 1090 1217 1245
> Sector Reads 4461358 4478920 4516170 4505277
> Sector Writes 12698146 12785845 12720364 12645422
> Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
> Slabs scanned 1976614 1994349 2077089 2081061
> Direct inode steals 22948 15954 17649 20023
> Kswapd inode steals 175854 186992 208169 216263
> Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
> THP fault alloc 246 262 264 240
> THP collapse alloc 255 265 327 310
> THP splits 14 13 13 13
> THP fault fallback 5 15 0 2
> THP collapse fail 27 27 25 25
> Compaction stalls 1778 1873 1859 1824
> Compaction success 275 318 319 299
> Compaction failures 1502 1555 1540 1524
> Page migrate success 3633014 3657877 3634074 3598224
> Page migrate failure 9804 8803 9796 9708
> Compaction pages isolated 7420349 7474113 7419569 7342056
> Compaction migrate scanned 72131019 83649881 82656970 81781759
> Compaction free scanned 285190682 294019483 273748735 275195864
> Compaction cost 4417 4524 4491 4447
> NUMA alloc hit 180976412 181453188 181021959 180675563
> NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
> NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
> NUMA alloc local 180976412 181453188 181021959 180675563
> NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
> NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
> AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-4 1-nothp-4 2-nothp-4 3-nothp-4
> Page alloc extfrag event 1952436 1661151 738877 773695
> Extfrag fragmenting 1952086 1660760 738488 773341
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 20531 14360 7780 8540
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 14937 7515 4644 7982
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2372 1458 1559 1349
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 2163 1184 1229 1084
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1929183 1644942 729149 763452
>
>
> Iteration 5:
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
> Success 1 Min 11.00 ( 0.00%) 12.00 ( -9.09%) 12.00 ( -9.09%) 13.00 (-18.18%)
> Success 1 Mean 14.80 ( 0.00%) 14.80 ( 0.00%) 17.60 (-18.92%) 15.00 ( -1.35%)
> Success 1 Max 19.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 ( 10.53%) 24.00 (-26.32%) 18.00 ( 5.26%)
> Success 2 Min 14.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 (-21.43%) 18.00 (-28.57%) 19.00 (-35.71%)
> Success 2 Mean 18.80 ( 0.00%) 19.80 ( -5.32%) 23.20 (-23.40%) 21.20 (-12.77%)
> Success 2 Max 24.00 ( 0.00%) 22.00 ( 8.33%) 29.00 (-20.83%) 24.00 ( 0.00%)
> Success 3 Min 75.00 ( 0.00%) 76.00 ( -1.33%) 76.00 ( -1.33%) 75.00 ( 0.00%)
> Success 3 Mean 76.80 ( 0.00%) 77.20 ( -0.52%) 77.20 ( -0.52%) 77.00 ( -0.26%)
> Success 3 Max 78.00 ( 0.00%) 79.00 ( -1.28%) 79.00 ( -1.28%) 78.00 ( 0.00%)
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
> User 7010.91 6975.75 6915.14 6970.45
> System 1055.83 1056.19 1053.80 1052.33
> Elapsed 2052.31 2048.28 2050.12 2053.89
>
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
> Minor Faults 197030140 197319524 197489685 197695270
> Major Faults 429 411 415 390
> Swap Ins 49 55 36 30
> Swap Outs 305 228 332 381
> Allocation stalls 5108 4659 4490 4328
> DMA allocs 99 134 141 122
> DMA32 allocs 123508440 123843605 123873130 124099102
> Normal allocs 58622667 58573504 58761770 58652867
> Movable allocs 0 0 0 0
> Direct pages scanned 220984 190063 158418 149760
> Kswapd pages scanned 2043404 2049188 2073308 2067291
> Kswapd pages reclaimed 2031444 2046517 2067186 2064528
> Direct pages reclaimed 218557 189225 157980 149287
> Kswapd efficiency 99% 99% 99% 99%
> Kswapd velocity 1012.674 1015.123 1022.432 1008.494
> Direct efficiency 98% 99% 99% 99%
> Direct velocity 109.516 94.153 78.122 73.058
> Percentage direct scans 9% 8% 7% 6%
> Zone normal velocity 354.483 355.563 345.106 347.632
> Zone dma32 velocity 767.696 753.701 755.430 733.904
> Zone dma velocity 0.011 0.013 0.018 0.016
> Page writes by reclaim 431.000 315.200 527.200 540.000
> Page writes file 125 87 194 158
> Page writes anon 305 228 332 381
> Page reclaim immediate 12115 1719 4469 1280
> Sector Reads 4487948 4453748 4502543 4490908
> Sector Writes 12621033 12653866 12659975 12687881
> Page rescued immediate 0 0 0 0
> Slabs scanned 1956286 1958388 2088099 2073000
> Direct inode steals 15390 20539 24285 29811
> Kswapd inode steals 185143 183428 219000 210892
> Kswapd skipped wait 0 0 0 0
> THP fault alloc 230 248 243 253
> THP collapse alloc 278 335 340 280
> THP splits 12 13 12 12
> THP fault fallback 5 2 2 1
> THP collapse fail 25 25 23 26
> Compaction stalls 1780 1797 1877 1859
> Compaction success 283 281 324 305
> Compaction failures 1497 1516 1553 1554
> Page migrate success 3670577 3519806 3645951 3783349
> Page migrate failure 8559 9771 11186 9559
> Compaction pages isolated 7495004 7189748 7444082 7722521
> Compaction migrate scanned 75257058 74119179 84933954 80371020
> Compaction free scanned 282720327 290434359 282089729 300987492
> Compaction cost 4479 4309 4520 4636
> NUMA alloc hit 180250566 180484746 180642086 180827624
> NUMA alloc miss 0 0 0 0
> NUMA interleave hit 0 0 0 0
> NUMA alloc local 180250566 180484746 180642086 180827624
> NUMA base PTE updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA page range updates 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local faults 0 0 0 0
> NUMA hint local percent 100 100 100 100
> NUMA pages migrated 0 0 0 0
> AutoNUMA cost 0% 0% 0% 0%
>
> WARNING: CPU:3 [LOST 7268 EVENTS]
> WARNING: CPU:2 [LOST 10396 EVENTS]
> - those were in 0-nothp-5, that's why it looks so good
> - on the other hand, events for 1-nothp-5 look absurdly high
> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
> 0-nothp-5 1-nothp-5 2-nothp-5 3-nothp-5
> Page alloc extfrag event 1532339 2043456 659360 824401
> Extfrag fragmenting 1532007 2043095 658942 824041
> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 12148 143580 8546 3232
> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 9266 139803 5350 2915
> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 2159 1374 1319 1298
> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 1988 1165 1047 1096
> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 1517700 1898141 649077 819511
>
> --
> 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>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks
2014-12-16 2:54 ` Joonsoo Kim
@ 2014-12-16 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlastimil Babka @ 2014-12-16 8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joonsoo Kim
Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-mm, linux-kernel, Aneesh Kumar K.V,
David Rientjes, Johannes Weiner, Kirill A. Shutemov,
KOSAKI Motohiro, Mel Gorman, Michal Hocko, Minchan Kim,
Rik van Riel, Zhang Yanfei
On 12/16/2014 03:54 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:05:22AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 12/15/2014 08:50 AM, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 05:01:22PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>>> Changes since v1:
>>>> o Reorder patch 2 and 3, Cc stable for patch 1
>>>> o Fix tracepoint in patch 1 (Joonsoo Kim)
>>>> o Cleanup in patch 2 (suggested by Minchan Kim)
>>>> o Improved comments and changelogs per Minchan and Mel.
>>>> o Considered /proc/pagetypeinfo in evaluation with 3.18 as baseline
>>>>
>>>> When studying page stealing, I noticed some weird looking decisions in
>>>> try_to_steal_freepages(). The first I assume is a bug (Patch 1), the following
>>>> two patches were driven by evaluation.
>>>>
>>>> Testing was done with stress-highalloc of mmtests, using the
>>>> mm_page_alloc_extfrag tracepoint and postprocessing to get counts of how often
>>>> page stealing occurs for individual migratetypes, and what migratetypes are
>>>> used for fallbacks. Arguably, the worst case of page stealing is when
>>>> UNMOVABLE allocation steals from MOVABLE pageblock. RECLAIMABLE allocation
>>>> stealing from MOVABLE allocation is also not ideal, so the goal is to minimize
>>>> these two cases.
>>>>
>>>> For some reason, the first patch increased the number of page stealing events
>>>> for MOVABLE allocations in the former evaluation with 3.17-rc7 + compaction
>>>> patches. In theory these events are not as bad, and the second patch does more
>>>> than just to correct this. In v2 evaluation based on 3.18, the weird result
>>>> was gone completely.
>>>>
>>>> In v2 I also checked if /proc/pagetypeinfo has shown an increase of the number
>>>> of unmovable/reclaimable pageblocks during and after the test, and it didn't.
>>>> The test was repeated 25 times with reboot only after each 5 to show
>>>> longer-term differences in the state of the system, which also wasn't the case.
>>>>
>>>> Extfrag events summed over first iteration after reboot (5 repeats)
>>>> 3.18 3.18 3.18 3.18
>>>> 0-nothp-1 1-nothp-1 2-nothp-1 3-nothp-1
>>>> Page alloc extfrag event 4547160 4593415 2343438 2198189
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting 4546361 4592610 2342595 2196611
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable 5725 9196 5720 1093
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting unmovable placed with movable 3877 4091 1330 859
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting for reclaimable 770 628 511 616
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting reclaimable placed with movable 679 520 407 492
>>>> Extfrag fragmenting for movable 4539866 4582786 2336364 2194902
>>>>
>>>> Compared to v1 this looks like a regression for patch 1 wrt unmovable events,
>>>> but I blame noise and less repeats (it was 10 in v1). On the other hand, the
>>>> the mysterious increase in movable allocation events in v1 is gone (due to
>>>> different baseline?)
>>>
>>> Hmm... the result on patch 2 looks odd.
>>> Because you reorder patches, patch 2 have some effects on unmovable
>>> stealing and I expect that 'Extfrag fragmenting for unmovable' decreases.
>>> But, the result looks not. Is there any reason you think?
>>
>> Hm, I don't see any obvious reason.
>>
>>> And, could you share compaction success rate and allocation success
>>> rate on each iteration? In fact, reducing Extfrag event isn't our goal.
>>> It is natural result of this patchset because we steal pages more
>>> aggressively. Our utimate goal is to make the system less fragmented
>>> and to get more high order freepage, so I'd like to know this results.
>>
>> I don't think there's much significant difference. Could be a limitation
>> of the benchmark. But even if there's no difference, it means the reduction
>> of fragmenting events at least saves time on allocations.
>
> Hmm... Allocation success rate of 3-nothp-N on phase 1,2 shows minor degradation
> from 2-nothp-N and compaction success rate also decreases. Isn't it?
> I think that allocation success rate on phase 1 is important because
> workload in phase 1 mostly resemble real world scenario. Do you have
> any idea why this happens?
It could be just noise, keep in mind that each 3-nothp-N is averaged
from just from 5 repeats. And the iterations without reboot (N) are not
independent, so if there's some "bad luck" upon boot, it will carry to
all N of 3-nothp-N.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-12-16 8:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-12-12 16:01 [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm: always steal split buddies in fallback allocations Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-15 7:51 ` Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-12 16:01 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm: more aggressive page stealing for UNMOVABLE allocations Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-15 7:50 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] page stealing tweaks Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-15 9:05 ` Vlastimil Babka
2014-12-16 2:54 ` Joonsoo Kim
2014-12-16 8:52 ` Vlastimil Babka
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).