All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Linux-X86 <x86@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix ebizzy performance regression on IvyBridge due to X86 TLB range flush
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:35:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131213133517.GA11176@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131212144029.GI11295@suse.de>


* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> > [...]
> >
> > stddev appears to be rather large especially around a client count 
> > of 7-8. It will be difficult to fine-tune the TLB range flush 
> > constants if noise is too large.
> 
> The number of iterations were very low to have high confidence of 
> the figures. The high standard deviation for 5 clients was a single 
> large outlier. It potentially could be stabilised to some extent by 
> bumping up the number of iterations a lot and using percentiles 
> instead of means.

Fair enough - and you were bisecting so length of runtime and 
confidence of detection were obviously the primary concerns.

> I'm a bit wary of optimising the TLB flush ranges based on the 
> benchmark even if we stabilised the figures. [...]

Absolutely - but they do appear to be pretty 'adversarial' to the TLB 
optimization, with a measurable slowdown in a pretty complex, 
real-life workload pattern.

So future tuning efforts will have to take such workloads into effect 
as well, to make sure we don't regress again.

Thanks,

	Ingo

--
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>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>, H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Linux-X86 <x86@kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix ebizzy performance regression on IvyBridge due to X86 TLB range flush
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:35:17 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131213133517.GA11176@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131212144029.GI11295@suse.de>


* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> > [...]
> >
> > stddev appears to be rather large especially around a client count 
> > of 7-8. It will be difficult to fine-tune the TLB range flush 
> > constants if noise is too large.
> 
> The number of iterations were very low to have high confidence of 
> the figures. The high standard deviation for 5 clients was a single 
> large outlier. It potentially could be stabilised to some extent by 
> bumping up the number of iterations a lot and using percentiles 
> instead of means.

Fair enough - and you were bisecting so length of runtime and 
confidence of detection were obviously the primary concerns.

> I'm a bit wary of optimising the TLB flush ranges based on the 
> benchmark even if we stabilised the figures. [...]

Absolutely - but they do appear to be pretty 'adversarial' to the TLB 
optimization, with a measurable slowdown in a pretty complex, 
real-life workload pattern.

So future tuning efforts will have to take such workloads into effect 
as well, to make sure we don't regress again.

Thanks,

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-13 13:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-12 11:55 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix ebizzy performance regression on IvyBridge due to X86 TLB range flush Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86: mm: Clean up inconsistencies when flushing TLB ranges Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55   ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 13:59   ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 13:59     ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 23:53     ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 23:53       ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86: mm: Change tlb_flushall_shift for IvyBridge Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55   ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 13:13   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 13:13     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 13:38     ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 13:38       ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 14:11       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 14:11         ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-13  1:02         ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13  1:02           ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13  2:11           ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13  2:11             ` Alex Shi
2013-12-13 13:43             ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-13 13:43               ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-14 11:01               ` Alex Shi
2013-12-14 11:01                 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-14 14:19             ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-14 14:19               ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-14 14:27               ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-14 14:27                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-16 13:59                 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-16 13:59                   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-17 11:59                   ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 11:59                     ` Alex Shi
2013-12-17 13:14                     ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-17 13:14                       ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-16  8:26               ` Alex Shi
2013-12-16  8:26                 ` Alex Shi
2013-12-16 10:06                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-16 10:06                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-12 13:45   ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 13:45     ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 11:55 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86: mm: Account for the of CPUs that must be flushed during a TLB range flush Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 11:55   ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 13:41   ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 13:41     ` Alex Shi
2013-12-12 13:01 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Fix ebizzy performance regression on IvyBridge due to X86 " Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 13:01   ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-12 14:40   ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-12 14:40     ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 13:35     ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-12-13 13:35       ` Ingo Molnar

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=20131213133517.GA11176@gmail.com \
    --to=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.