Re: [PATCH v3 rcu-dev] rcuperf: Measure memory footprint during kfree_rcu() test

[Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 11:52:00AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 10:37:14PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 04:07:29PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 04:13:49PM -0500, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > > > During changes to kfree_rcu() code, we often check the amount of free
> > > > memory.  As an alternative to checking this manually, this commit adds a
> > > > measurement in the test itself.  It measures four times during the test
> > > > for available memory, digitally filters these measurements to produce a
> > > > running average with a weight of 0.5, and compares this digitally
> > > > filtered value with the amount of available memory at the beginning of
> > > > the test.
> > > > 
> > > > We apply the digital filter only once we are more than 25% into the
> > > > test. At the 25% mark, we just read available memory and don't apply any
> > > > filtering. This prevents the first sample from skewing the results
> > > > as we would not consider memory readings that were before memory was
> > > > allocated.
> > > > 
> > > > A sample run shows something like:
> > > > 
> > > > Total time taken by all kfree'ers: 6369738407 ns, loops: 10000, batches: 764, memory footprint: 216MB
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > 
> > > Much better!  A few comments below.
> > > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > ---
> > > > v1->v2: Minor corrections
> > > > v1->v3: Use long long to prevent 32-bit system's overflow
> > > > 	Handle case where some threads start later than others.
> > > > 	Start measuring only once 25% into the test. Slightly more accurate.
> > > > 
> > > > Cc: bristot@redhat.com
> > > > Cc: frextrite@gmail.com
> > > > Cc: madhuparnabhowmik04@gmail.com
> > > > Cc: urezki@gmail.com
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes (Google) <joel@joelfernandes.org>
> > > > 
> > > >  kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > index da94b89cd531..67e0f804ea97 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > > > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > > >  #include <linux/types.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/init.h>
> > > > +#include <linux/mm.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/kthread.h>
> > > >  #include <linux/err.h>
> > > > @@ -604,6 +605,8 @@ struct kfree_obj {
> > > >  	struct rcu_head rh;
> > > >  };
> > > >  
> > > > +long long mem_begin;
> > > > +
> > > >  static int
> > > >  kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > >  {
> > > > @@ -611,6 +614,7 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > >  	long me = (long)arg;
> > > >  	struct kfree_obj *alloc_ptr;
> > > >  	u64 start_time, end_time;
> > > > +	long long mem_during = si_mem_available();
> > > 
> > > You initialize here, which makes quite a bit of sense...
> > > 
> > > >  	VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("kfree_perf_thread task started");
> > > >  	set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
> > > > @@ -626,6 +630,15 @@ kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > > >  	}
> > > >  
> > > >  	do {
> > > > +		// Moving average of memory availability measurements.
> > > > +		// Start measuring only from when we are at least 25% into the test.
> > > > +		if (loop && kfree_loops > 3 && (loop % (kfree_loops / 4) == 0)) {
> > > > +			if (loop == (kfree_loops / 4))
> > > > +				mem_during = si_mem_available();
> > > 
> > > But then you reinitialize here.  Perhaps to avoid the compiler being
> > > confused into complaining about uninitialized variables?  (But if so,
> > > please comment it.)
> > 
> > It is reinitialized here like that, because if kfree_loops is < 4, then
> > mem_during needs to hold some value to avoid the (mem_begin - mem_during) to
> > falsely appear quite large. That's why I initialized it in the beginning. If
> > kfree_loops is >= 4, then yes it will be initialized twice but that's Ok.
> > 
> > I can add a comment to the earlier initialization if you like.
> 
> Could we just force kfree_loops >= 4?  Complain if not, set it to 4?

Sure.

> > > The thing is that by the fourth measurement, the initial influence has
> > > been diluted by a factor of something like 16 or 32, correct?  I don't
> > > believe that your measurements are any more accurate than that, given the
> > > bursty nature of the RCU reclamation process.  So why not just initialize
> > > it and average it at each sample point?
> > 
> > Yes but diluting 200MB of delta by 16 is still high and causes a skew.
> 
> You get similar errors by only sampling four times, though.  Assuming a
> reasonably long test run compared to the typical grace-period duration,
> each of the four samples has a 50% chance of being above the median,
> thus a 1/16 chance of all four samples being above the median.

[snip]
> > We can certainly refine it further but at this time I am thinking of spending
> > my time reviewing Lai's patches and learning some other RCU things I need to
> > catch up on. If you hate this patch too much, we can also defer this patch
> > review for a bit and I can carry it in my tree for now as it is only a patch
> > to test code. But honestly, in its current form I am sort of happy with it.
> 
> OK, I will keep it as is for now and let's look again later on.  It is not
> in the bucket for the upcoming merge window in any case, so we do have
> quite a bit of time.
> 
> It is not that I hate it, but rather that I want to be able to give
> good answers to questions that might come up.  And given that I have
> occasionally given certain people a hard time about their statistics,
> it is only reasonable to expect them to return the favor.  I wouldn't
> want you to be caught in the crossfire.  ;-)

Since the weights were concerning, I was thinking of just using a weight of
(1 / N) where N is the number of samples. Essentially taking the average.
That could be simple enough and does not cause your concerns with weight
tuning. I tested it and looks good, I'll post it shortly.

thanks,

 - Joel