From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCFAC3A5A1 for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:26:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D277D233FD for ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:26:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="TUTU2NnU" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731552AbfHVP0G (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:26:06 -0400 Received: from userp2130.oracle.com ([156.151.31.86]:56738 "EHLO userp2130.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729880AbfHVP0F (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:26:05 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (userp2130.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2130.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7MF4Mx0087310; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:57 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=subject : to : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=1L5ER/qHk23OYtUxN07nDgRdnfnZxx2DF63Rw066TEU=; b=TUTU2NnUGOh4xD4o+ekU6weirf9jpHf+pLiY1Q/982QWFCZeo0muWZqUzEIst9mmeX2G tvc1KCLIMJv2FqopEsyv9HxiinVifeIFZCOgOXpieTlIyE8BeQT5DXBbUeH9BA0GC9f6 SkWbP7KPLFpzj68lv1OfKaMVHRSLAvsoHzQarkWQyeeglWf6MzaDzBMcVo8CHqrA0PWn gC9SiP1VTgkabkM2NZBe6va8+EacRo3aq8PzjlZ90Q57mH9CIy9gYUV1DMDBTWHFVliT W7QWqT+hSJMIQ8GpYi/X7nlE+ViJU+0yCyasx6cEh9hTVifRdlge73HeEEwcgwfEymcU sA== Received: from aserp3030.oracle.com (aserp3030.oracle.com [141.146.126.71]) by userp2130.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2ue90txm3f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:56 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x7MF3xeU179464; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:56 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2uhusembk0-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:55 +0000 Received: from abhmp0006.oracle.com (abhmp0006.oracle.com [141.146.116.12]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x7MFKrjU013736; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:54 GMT Received: from [192.168.1.219] (/98.229.125.203) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:20:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] per memcg lru_lock To: Alex Shi , cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Tejun Heo , Michal Hocko References: <1566294517-86418-1-git-send-email-alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com> <6ba1ffb0-fce0-c590-c373-7cbc516dbebd@oracle.com> <348495d2-b558-fdfd-a411-89c75d4a9c78@linux.alibaba.com> From: Daniel Jordan Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:20:52 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <348495d2-b558-fdfd-a411-89c75d4a9c78@linux.alibaba.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9356 signatures=668684 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908220150 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9356 signatures=668684 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1906280000 definitions=main-1908220150 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 8/22/19 7:56 AM, Alex Shi wrote: > 在 2019/8/22 上午2:00, Daniel Jordan 写道: >>   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/vm-scalability.git/tree/case-lru-file-readtwice> >> It's also synthetic but it stresses lru_lock more than just anon alloc/free.  It hits the page activate path, which is where we see this lock in our database, and if enough memory is configured lru_lock also gets stressed during reclaim, similar to [1]. > > Thanks for the sharing, this patchset can not help the [1] case, since it's just relief the per container lock contention now. I should've been clearer. [1] is meant as an example of someone suffering from lru_lock during reclaim. Wouldn't your series help per-memcg reclaim? > Yes, readtwice case could be more sensitive for this lru_lock changes in containers. I may try to use it in container with some tuning. But anyway, aim9 is also pretty good to show the problem and solutions. :) >> >> It'd be better though, as Michal suggests, to use the real workload that's causing problems.  Where are you seeing contention? > > We repeatly create or delete a lot of different containers according to servers load/usage, so normal workload could cause lots of pages alloc/remove. I think numbers from that scenario would help your case. > aim9 could reflect part of scenarios. I don't know the DB scenario yet. We see it during DB shutdown when each DB process frees its memory (zap_pte_range -> mark_page_accessed). But that's a different thing, clearly Not This Series. >>> With this patch series, lruvec->lru_lock show no contentions >>>          &(&lruvec->lru_l...          8          0               0       0               0               0 >>> >>> and aim9 page_test/brk_test performance increased 5%~50%. >> >> Where does the 50% number come in?  The numbers below seem to only show ~4% boost. > > the Setddev/CoeffVar case has about 50% performance increase. one of container's mmtests result as following: > > Stddev page_test 245.15 ( 0.00%) 189.29 ( 22.79%) > Stddev brk_test 1258.60 ( 0.00%) 629.16 ( 50.01%) > CoeffVar page_test 0.71 ( 0.00%) 0.53 ( 26.05%) > CoeffVar brk_test 1.32 ( 0.00%) 0.64 ( 51.14%) Aha. 50% decrease in stdev.