From: Mel Gorman <mgorman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org>,
Andrew Morton
<akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>,
Linux-CGroups <cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: Try charging a page before setting page up to date
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:15:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150520161520.GR2462@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150520152923.GA2874-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:29:23AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:50:44PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Historically memcg overhead was high even if memcg was unused. This has
> > improved a lot but it still showed up in a profile summary as being a
> > problem.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-vanilla/mm/memcontrol.c 6.6441 395842
> > mem_cgroup_try_charge 2.950% 175781
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.431% 85239
> > mem_cgroup_page_lruvec 0.456% 27156
> > mem_cgroup_commit_charge 0.392% 23342
> > uncharge_list 0.323% 19256
> > mem_cgroup_update_lru_size 0.278% 16538
> > memcg_check_events 0.216% 12858
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics.isra.22 0.188% 11172
> > try_charge 0.150% 8928
> > commit_charge 0.141% 8388
> > get_mem_cgroup_from_mm 0.121% 7184
> >
> > That is showing that 6.64% of system CPU cycles were in memcontrol.c and
> > dominated by mem_cgroup_try_charge. The annotation shows that the bulk of
> > the cost was checking PageSwapCache which is expected to be cache hot but is
> > very expensive. The problem appears to be that __SetPageUptodate is called
> > just before the check which is a write barrier. It is required to make sure
> > struct page and page data is written before the PTE is updated and the data
> > visible to userspace. memcg charging does not require or need the barrier
> > but gets unfairly hit with the cost so this patch attempts the charging
> > before the barrier. Aside from the accidental cost to memcg there is the
> > added benefit that the barrier is avoided if the page cannot be charged.
> > When applied the relevant profile summary is as follows.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-chargefirst-v2r1/mm/memcontrol.c 3.7907 223277
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.143% 67312
>
> Out of curiosity, I'm still consistently reading this function at
> around 0.7%. Are you profiling this single-threadedly or for the
> entire run? For profiling 80 single-threaded iterations, I get:
>
Single-threaded. The mmtests benchmark in question supports gathering one
profile per thread count so it's just the 1 thread profile I included in
the changelog. The CPU in question is a i7-3770
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Linux-CGroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: Try charging a page before setting page up to date
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:15:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150520161520.GR2462@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150520152923.GA2874@cmpxchg.org>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:29:23AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:50:44PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Historically memcg overhead was high even if memcg was unused. This has
> > improved a lot but it still showed up in a profile summary as being a
> > problem.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-vanilla/mm/memcontrol.c 6.6441 395842
> > mem_cgroup_try_charge 2.950% 175781
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.431% 85239
> > mem_cgroup_page_lruvec 0.456% 27156
> > mem_cgroup_commit_charge 0.392% 23342
> > uncharge_list 0.323% 19256
> > mem_cgroup_update_lru_size 0.278% 16538
> > memcg_check_events 0.216% 12858
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics.isra.22 0.188% 11172
> > try_charge 0.150% 8928
> > commit_charge 0.141% 8388
> > get_mem_cgroup_from_mm 0.121% 7184
> >
> > That is showing that 6.64% of system CPU cycles were in memcontrol.c and
> > dominated by mem_cgroup_try_charge. The annotation shows that the bulk of
> > the cost was checking PageSwapCache which is expected to be cache hot but is
> > very expensive. The problem appears to be that __SetPageUptodate is called
> > just before the check which is a write barrier. It is required to make sure
> > struct page and page data is written before the PTE is updated and the data
> > visible to userspace. memcg charging does not require or need the barrier
> > but gets unfairly hit with the cost so this patch attempts the charging
> > before the barrier. Aside from the accidental cost to memcg there is the
> > added benefit that the barrier is avoided if the page cannot be charged.
> > When applied the relevant profile summary is as follows.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-chargefirst-v2r1/mm/memcontrol.c 3.7907 223277
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.143% 67312
>
> Out of curiosity, I'm still consistently reading this function at
> around 0.7%. Are you profiling this single-threadedly or for the
> entire run? For profiling 80 single-threaded iterations, I get:
>
Single-threaded. The mmtests benchmark in question supports gathering one
profile per thread count so it's just the 1 thread profile I included in
the changelog. The CPU in question is a i7-3770
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Linux-CGroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: Try charging a page before setting page up to date
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 17:15:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150520161520.GR2462@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150520152923.GA2874@cmpxchg.org>
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:29:23AM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:50:44PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > Historically memcg overhead was high even if memcg was unused. This has
> > improved a lot but it still showed up in a profile summary as being a
> > problem.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-vanilla/mm/memcontrol.c 6.6441 395842
> > mem_cgroup_try_charge 2.950% 175781
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.431% 85239
> > mem_cgroup_page_lruvec 0.456% 27156
> > mem_cgroup_commit_charge 0.392% 23342
> > uncharge_list 0.323% 19256
> > mem_cgroup_update_lru_size 0.278% 16538
> > memcg_check_events 0.216% 12858
> > mem_cgroup_charge_statistics.isra.22 0.188% 11172
> > try_charge 0.150% 8928
> > commit_charge 0.141% 8388
> > get_mem_cgroup_from_mm 0.121% 7184
> >
> > That is showing that 6.64% of system CPU cycles were in memcontrol.c and
> > dominated by mem_cgroup_try_charge. The annotation shows that the bulk of
> > the cost was checking PageSwapCache which is expected to be cache hot but is
> > very expensive. The problem appears to be that __SetPageUptodate is called
> > just before the check which is a write barrier. It is required to make sure
> > struct page and page data is written before the PTE is updated and the data
> > visible to userspace. memcg charging does not require or need the barrier
> > but gets unfairly hit with the cost so this patch attempts the charging
> > before the barrier. Aside from the accidental cost to memcg there is the
> > added benefit that the barrier is avoided if the page cannot be charged.
> > When applied the relevant profile summary is as follows.
> >
> > /usr/src/linux-4.0-chargefirst-v2r1/mm/memcontrol.c 3.7907 223277
> > __mem_cgroup_count_vm_event 1.143% 67312
>
> Out of curiosity, I'm still consistently reading this function at
> around 0.7%. Are you profiling this single-threadedly or for the
> entire run? For profiling 80 single-threaded iterations, I get:
>
Single-threaded. The mmtests benchmark in question supports gathering one
profile per thread count so it's just the 1 thread profile I included in
the changelog. The CPU in question is a i7-3770
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-20 16:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-20 12:50 [PATCH 0/2] Reduce overhead of memcg when unused Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm, memcg: Try charging a page before setting page up to date Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 14:03 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 14:03 ` Michal Hocko
[not found] ` <20150520140353.GC28678-2MMpYkNvuYDjFM9bn6wA6Q@public.gmane.org>
2015-05-20 14:18 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 14:18 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 14:18 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 15:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-20 15:29 ` Johannes Weiner
[not found] ` <20150520152923.GA2874-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
2015-05-20 16:15 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2015-05-20 16:15 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 16:15 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm, memcg: Optionally disable memcg by default using Kconfig Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 12:50 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 13:47 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-05-20 13:47 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2015-05-20 14:12 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 14:12 ` Michal Hocko
2015-05-20 14:13 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 14:13 ` Mel Gorman
[not found] ` <1432126245-10908-3-git-send-email-mgorman-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org>
2015-05-20 16:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-20 16:24 ` Johannes Weiner
2015-05-20 16:24 ` Johannes Weiner
[not found] ` <20150520162421.GB2874-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org>
2015-05-20 16:44 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 16:44 ` Mel Gorman
2015-05-20 16:44 ` Mel Gorman
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=20150520161520.GR2462@suse.de \
--to=mgorman-l3a5bk7wagm@public.gmane.org \
--cc=akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org \
--cc=cgroups-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=hannes-druUgvl0LCNAfugRpC6u6w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-mm-Bw31MaZKKs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=mhocko-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org \
--cc=tj-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.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.