linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2017 22:29:58 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170103222958.4a2ce0e6@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170103102439.4fienez2fkgqwbrd@techsingularity.net>

On Tue, 3 Jan 2017 10:24:39 +0000
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 03:26:15PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > And I fixed that too.
> > > 
> > > Of course, I didn't test the changes (apart from building it). But
> > > I've been running the previous version since yesterday, so far no
> > > issues.  
> > 
> > It looks good to me.
> >   
> 
> FWIW, I blindly queued a test of Nick's patch, Linus' patch on top and
> PeterZ's patch using 4.9 as a baseline so all could be applied cleanly.
> 3 machines were used, one one of them NUMA with 2 sockets. The UMA
> machines showed nothing unusual.

Hey thanks Mel.

> 
> kernel building showed nothing unusual on any machine
> 
> git checkout in a loop showed;
> 	o minor gains with Nick's patch
> 	o no impact from Linus's patch
> 	o flat performance from PeterZ's
> 
> git test suite showed
> 	o close to flat performance on all patches
> 	o Linus' patch on top showed increased variability but not serious

I'd be really surprised if Linus's patch is actually adding variability
unless it is just some random cache or branch predictor or similar change
due to changed code sizes. Testing on skylake CPU showed the old sequence
takes a big stall with the load-after-lock;op hazard.

So I wouldn't worry about it too much, but maybe something interesting to
look at for someone who knows x86 microarchitectures well.

> 
> will-it-scale pagefault tests
> 	o page_fault1 and page_fault2 showed no differences in processes
> 
> 	o page_fault3 using processes did show some large losses at some
> 	  process counts on all patches. The losses were not consistent on
> 	  each run. There also was no consistently at loss with increasing
> 	  process counts. It did appear that Peter's patch had fewer
> 	  problems with only one thread count showing problems so it
> 	  *may* be more resistent to the problem but not completely and
> 	  it's not obvious why it might be so it could be a testing
> 	  anomaly

Okay. page_fault3 has each process doing repeated page faults on their
own 128MB file in /tmp. Unless they fill memory and start to reclaim,
(which I believe must be happening in Dave's case) there should be no
contention on page lock. After the patch, the uncontended case should
be strictly faster when there is no contention.

When there is contention, there is an added cost of setting and clearing
page waiters bit. Maybe there is some other issue there... are you seeing
the losses in uncontended case, contended, or both?

Thanks,
Nick

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-03 12:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-12-25  3:00 [PATCH 0/2] PageWaiters again Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-25  3:00 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: Use owner_priv bit for PageSwapCache, valid when PageSwapBacked Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-25  5:13   ` Hugh Dickins
2016-12-25  3:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-25 21:51   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-26  1:16     ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-26 19:07       ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-27 11:19         ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-27 18:58           ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-27 19:23             ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-27 19:24               ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-27 19:40                 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-27 20:17                   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-28  3:53             ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-28 19:17               ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-29  4:08                 ` Nicholas Piggin
2016-12-29  4:16                   ` Linus Torvalds
2016-12-29  5:26                     ` Nicholas Piggin
2017-01-03 10:24                       ` Mel Gorman
2017-01-03 12:29                         ` Nicholas Piggin [this message]
2017-01-03 17:18                           ` Mel Gorman
2016-12-29 22:16                     ` [PATCH] mm/filemap: fix parameters to test_bit() Olof Johansson

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170103222958.4a2ce0e6@roar.ozlabs.ibm.com \
    --to=npiggin@gmail.com \
    --cc=agruenba@redhat.com \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=rpeterso@redhat.com \
    --cc=swhiteho@redhat.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: add PageWaiters indicating tasks are waiting for a page bit' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

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).