linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
To: Pratik Sampat <psampat@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] percpu: partial chunk depopulation
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:34:16 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHnYqMdyYtIdab6n@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8ea7c616-95e8-e391-5373-ebaf10836d2c@linux.ibm.com>

On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 11:57:03PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> 
> 
> On 16/04/21 10:43 pm, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 08:58:33PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > > Hello Dennis,
> > > 
> > > I apologize for the clutter of logs before, I'm pasting the logs of before and
> > > after the percpu test in the case of the patchset being applied on 5.12-rc6 and
> > > the vanilla kernel 5.12-rc6.
> > > 
> > > On 16/04/21 7:48 pm, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 06:26:15PM +0530, Pratik Sampat wrote:
> > > > > Hello Roman,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've tried the v3 patch series on a POWER9 and an x86 KVM setup.
> > > > > 
> > > > > My results of the percpu_test are as follows:
> > > > > Intel KVM 4CPU:4G
> > > > > Vanilla 5.12-rc6
> > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > Percpu:             1952 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           219648 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           219648 kB
> > > > > 
> > > > > 5.12-rc6 + with patchset applied
> > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > Percpu:             2080 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           219712 kB
> > > > > Percpu:            72672 kB
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm able to see improvement comparable to that of what you're see too.
> > > > > 
> > > > > However, on POWERPC I'm unable to reproduce these improvements with the patchset in the same configuration
> > > > > 
> > > > > POWER9 KVM 4CPU:4G
> > > > > Vanilla 5.12-rc6
> > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > Percpu:             5888 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           118272 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           118272 kB
> > > > > 
> > > > > 5.12-rc6 + with patchset applied
> > > > > # ./percpu_test.sh
> > > > > Percpu:             6144 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           119040 kB
> > > > > Percpu:           119040 kB
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm wondering if there's any architectural specific code that needs plumbing
> > > > > here?
> > > > > 
> > > > There shouldn't be. Can you send me the percpu_stats debug output before
> > > > and after?
> > > I'll paste the whole debug stats before and after here.
> > > 5.12-rc6 + patchset
> > > -----BEFORE-----
> > > Percpu Memory Statistics
> > > Allocation Info:
> > 
> > Hm, this looks highly suspicious. Here is your stats in a more compact form:
> > 
> > Vanilla
> > 
> > nr_alloc            :         9038         nr_alloc            :        97046
> > nr_dealloc          :         6992	   nr_dealloc          :        94237
> > nr_cur_alloc        :         2046	   nr_cur_alloc        :         2809
> > nr_max_alloc        :         2178	   nr_max_alloc        :        90054
> > nr_chunks           :            3	   nr_chunks           :           11
> > nr_max_chunks       :            3	   nr_max_chunks       :           47
> > min_alloc_size      :            4	   min_alloc_size      :            4
> > max_alloc_size      :         1072	   max_alloc_size      :         1072
> > empty_pop_pages     :            5	   empty_pop_pages     :           29
> > 
> > 
> > Patched
> > 
> > nr_alloc            :         9040         nr_alloc            :        97048
> > nr_dealloc          :         6994	   nr_dealloc          :        95002
> > nr_cur_alloc        :         2046	   nr_cur_alloc        :         2046
> > nr_max_alloc        :         2208	   nr_max_alloc        :        90054
> > nr_chunks           :            3	   nr_chunks           :           48
> > nr_max_chunks       :            3	   nr_max_chunks       :           48
> > min_alloc_size      :            4	   min_alloc_size      :            4
> > max_alloc_size      :         1072	   max_alloc_size      :         1072
> > empty_pop_pages     :           12	   empty_pop_pages     :           61
> > 
> > 
> > So it looks like the number of chunks got bigger, as well as the number of
> > empty_pop_pages? This contradicts to what you wrote, so can you, please, make
> > sure that the data is correct and we're not messing two cases?
> > 
> > So it looks like for some reason sidelined (depopulated) chunks are not getting
> > freed completely. But I struggle to explain why the initial empty_pop_pages is
> > bigger with the same amount of chunks.
> > 
> > So, can you, please, apply the following patch and provide an updated statistics?
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm not completely well versed in this area, but yes the empty
> pop pages number doesn't make sense to me either.
> 
> I re-ran the numbers trying to make sure my experiment setup is sane but
> results remain the same.
> 
> Vanilla
> nr_alloc            :         9040         nr_alloc            :        97048
> nr_dealloc          :         6994	   nr_dealloc          :        94404
> nr_cur_alloc        :         2046	   nr_cur_alloc        :         2644
> nr_max_alloc        :         2169	   nr_max_alloc        :        90054
> nr_chunks           :            3	   nr_chunks           :           10
> nr_max_chunks       :            3	   nr_max_chunks       :           47
> min_alloc_size      :            4	   min_alloc_size      :            4
> max_alloc_size      :         1072	   max_alloc_size      :         1072
> empty_pop_pages     :            4	   empty_pop_pages     :           32
> 
> With the patchset + debug patch the results are as follows:
> Patched
> 
> nr_alloc            :         9040         nr_alloc            :        97048
> nr_dealloc          :         6994	   nr_dealloc          :        94349
> nr_cur_alloc        :         2046	   nr_cur_alloc        :         2699
> nr_max_alloc        :         2194	   nr_max_alloc        :        90054
> nr_chunks           :            3	   nr_chunks           :           48
> nr_max_chunks       :            3	   nr_max_chunks       :           48
> min_alloc_size      :            4	   min_alloc_size      :            4
> max_alloc_size      :         1072	   max_alloc_size      :         1072
> empty_pop_pages     :           12	   empty_pop_pages     :           54
> 
> With the extra tracing I can see 39 entries of "Chunk (sidelined)"
> after the test was run. I don't see any entries for "Chunk (to depopulate)"
> 
> I've snipped the results of slidelined chunks because they went on for ~600
> lines, if you need the full logs let me know.

Yes, please! That's the most interesting part!

  reply	other threads:[~2021-04-16 18:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-08  3:57 Roman Gushchin
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] percpu: fix a comment about the chunks ordering Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 21:06   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] percpu: split __pcpu_balance_workfn() Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 21:06   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] percpu: make pcpu_nr_empty_pop_pages per chunk type Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 21:08   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] percpu: generalize pcpu_balance_populated() Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 21:09   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] percpu: factor out pcpu_check_chunk_hint() Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 21:15   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-08  3:57 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 12:56 ` [PATCH v3 0/6] percpu: " Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 14:18   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-16 15:28     ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 17:13       ` Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 18:27         ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 18:34           ` Roman Gushchin [this message]
2021-04-16 18:41             ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 19:09               ` Roman Gushchin
2021-04-16 19:44                 ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 20:03                   ` Roman Gushchin
2021-04-17  7:08                     ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 21:47                   ` Dennis Zhou
2021-04-17  7:14                     ` Pratik Sampat
2021-04-16 16:21     ` Roman Gushchin

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=YHnYqMdyYtIdab6n@carbon.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
    --to=guro@fb.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=dennis@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=pratik.r.sampat@gmail.com \
    --cc=psampat@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] percpu: partial chunk depopulation' \
    /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).