Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm, page_allocator: Only use per-cpu allocator for irq-safe requests

[Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 13:44:20 +0100
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon,  9 Jan 2017 16:35:17 +0000 Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net> wrote:
>  
> > The following is results from a page allocator micro-benchmark. Only
> > order-0 is interesting as higher orders do not use the per-cpu allocator  
> 
> Micro-benchmarked with [1] page_bench02:
>  modprobe page_bench02 page_order=0 run_flags=$((2#010)) loops=$((10**8)); \
>   rmmod page_bench02 ; dmesg --notime | tail -n 4
> 
> Compared to baseline: 213 cycles(tsc) 53.417 ns
>  - against this     : 184 cycles(tsc) 46.056 ns
>  - Saving           : -29 cycles
>  - Very close to expected 27 cycles saving [see below [2]]

When perf benchmarking I noticed that the "summed" children perf
overhead from calling alloc_pages_current() is 65.05%. Compared to
"free-path" of summed 28.28% of calls "under" __free_pages().

This is caused by CONFIG_NUMA=y, as call path is long with NUMA
(and other helpers are also non-inlined calls):

 alloc_pages
  -> alloc_pages_current
      -> __alloc_pages_nodemask
          -> get_page_from_freelist

Without NUMA the call levels gets compacted by inlining to:

 __alloc_pages_nodemask
  -> get_page_from_freelist

After disabling NUMA, the split between alloc(48.80%) vs. free(42.67%)
side is more balanced.

Saving by disabling CONFIG_NUMA of:
 - CONFIG_NUMA=y : 184 cycles(tsc) 46.056 ns
 - CONFIG_NUMA=n : 143 cycles(tsc) 35.913 ns
 - Saving:       :  41 cycles (approx 22%)

I would conclude, there is room for improvements with CONFIG_NUMA code
path case. Lets followup on that in a later patch series...


> > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
> > Acked-by: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>  
> 
> Acked-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
> 
> [1] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/tree/master/kernel/mm/bench
> -
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
> 
> [2] Expected saving comes from Mel removing a local_irq_{save,restore}
> and adding a preempt_{disable,enable} instead.
> 
> Micro benchmarking via time_bench_sample[3], we get the cost of these
> operations:
> 
>  time_bench: Type:for_loop                 Per elem: 0 cycles(tsc) 0.232 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:spin_lock_unlock         Per elem: 33 cycles(tsc) 8.334 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:spin_lock_unlock_irqsave Per elem: 62 cycles(tsc) 15.607 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:irqsave_before_lock      Per elem: 57 cycles(tsc) 14.344 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:spin_lock_unlock_irq     Per elem: 34 cycles(tsc) 8.560 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:simple_irq_disable_before_lock Per elem: 37 cycles(tsc) 9.289 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:local_BH_disable_enable  Per elem: 19 cycles(tsc) 4.920 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:local_IRQ_disable_enable Per elem: 7 cycles(tsc) 1.864 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:local_irq_save_restore   Per elem: 38 cycles(tsc) 9.665 ns (step:0)
>  [Mel's patch removes a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^]            ^^^^^^^^^ expected saving - preempt cost
>  time_bench: Type:preempt_disable_enable   Per elem: 11 cycles(tsc) 2.794 ns (step:0)
>  [adds a preempt  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^]            ^^^^^^^^^ adds this cost
>  time_bench: Type:funcion_call_cost        Per elem: 6 cycles(tsc) 1.689 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:func_ptr_call_cost       Per elem: 11 cycles(tsc) 2.767 ns (step:0)
>  time_bench: Type:page_alloc_put           Per elem: 211 cycles(tsc) 52.803 ns (step:0)
> 
> Thus, expected improvement is: 38-11 = 27 cycles.
> 
> [3] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/lib/time_bench_sample.c
> 
> CPU used: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790K CPU @ 4.00GHz
> 
> Config options of interest:
>  CONFIG_NUMA=y
>  CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST=n
>  CONFIG_VM_EVENT_COUNTERS=y



-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

--
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>