All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sarah Newman <srn@prgmr.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:13:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53266841.6090308@prgmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <531DF319.6010800@citrix.com>

On 03/10/2014 10:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/03/14 16:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 03/10/2014 09:17 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> math_state_restore() is called from the #NM exception handler.  It may
>>> do a GFP_KERNEL allocation (in init_fpu()) which may schedule.
>>>
>>> Change this allocation to GFP_ATOMIC, but leave all the other callers
>>> of init_fpu() or fpu_alloc() using GFP_KERNEL.
>>
>> And what the [Finnish] do you do if GFP_ATOMIC fails?
> 
> The same thing it used to do -- kill the task with SIGKILL.  I haven't
> changed this behaviour.
> 
>> Sarah's patchset switches Xen PV to use eagerfpu unconditionally, which
>> removes the dependency on #NM and is the right thing to do.
> 
> Ok. I'll wait for this series and not pursue this patch any further.

Sorry, this got swallowed by my mail filter.

I did some more testing and I think eagerfpu is going to noticeably slow things down. When I ran
"time sysbench --num-threads=64 --test=threads run" I saw on the order of 15% more time spent in
system mode and this seemed consistent over different runs.

As for GFP_ATOMIC, unfortunately I don't know a sanctioned test here so I rolled my own. This test
sequentially allocated math-using processes in the background until it could not any more.  On a
64MB instance, I saw 10% fewer processes allocated with GFP_ATOMIC compared to GFP_KERNEL when I
continually allocated new processes up to OOM conditions (256 vs 228.)  A similar test on a
different RFS and a kernel using GFP_NOWAIT showed pretty much no difference in how many processes I
could allocate. This doesn't seem too bad unless there is some kind of fragmentation over time which
would cause worse performance.

Since performance degradation applies at all times and not just under extreme conditions, I think
the lesser evil will actually be GFP_ATOMIC.  But it's not necessary to always use GFP_ATOMIC, only
under certain conditions - IE when the xen PVABI forces us to.

Patches will be supplied shortly.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sarah Newman <srn@prgmr.com>
To: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:13:05 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53266841.6090308@prgmr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <531DF319.6010800@citrix.com>

On 03/10/2014 10:15 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/03/14 16:40, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 03/10/2014 09:17 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> math_state_restore() is called from the #NM exception handler.  It may
>>> do a GFP_KERNEL allocation (in init_fpu()) which may schedule.
>>>
>>> Change this allocation to GFP_ATOMIC, but leave all the other callers
>>> of init_fpu() or fpu_alloc() using GFP_KERNEL.
>>
>> And what the [Finnish] do you do if GFP_ATOMIC fails?
> 
> The same thing it used to do -- kill the task with SIGKILL.  I haven't
> changed this behaviour.
> 
>> Sarah's patchset switches Xen PV to use eagerfpu unconditionally, which
>> removes the dependency on #NM and is the right thing to do.
> 
> Ok. I'll wait for this series and not pursue this patch any further.

Sorry, this got swallowed by my mail filter.

I did some more testing and I think eagerfpu is going to noticeably slow things down. When I ran
"time sysbench --num-threads=64 --test=threads run" I saw on the order of 15% more time spent in
system mode and this seemed consistent over different runs.

As for GFP_ATOMIC, unfortunately I don't know a sanctioned test here so I rolled my own. This test
sequentially allocated math-using processes in the background until it could not any more.  On a
64MB instance, I saw 10% fewer processes allocated with GFP_ATOMIC compared to GFP_KERNEL when I
continually allocated new processes up to OOM conditions (256 vs 228.)  A similar test on a
different RFS and a kernel using GFP_NOWAIT showed pretty much no difference in how many processes I
could allocate. This doesn't seem too bad unless there is some kind of fragmentation over time which
would cause worse performance.

Since performance degradation applies at all times and not just under extreme conditions, I think
the lesser evil will actually be GFP_ATOMIC.  But it's not necessary to always use GFP_ATOMIC, only
under certain conditions - IE when the xen PVABI forces us to.

Patches will be supplied shortly.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-03-17  3:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 68+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-10 16:17 [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception David Vrabel
2014-03-10 16:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-10 17:15   ` David Vrabel
2014-03-10 17:15   ` David Vrabel
2014-03-10 17:25     ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-10 17:25       ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17  3:13     ` Sarah Newman [this message]
2014-03-17  3:13       ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  3:30       ` [PATCH] x86: Control CR0 TS behavior using dev_na_ts_allowed Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  8:38         ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-17 12:42           ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17 13:35             ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-17 14:05               ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17 14:18                 ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17 15:28                   ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-18 18:07                   ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-18 19:14                     ` David Vrabel
2014-03-17 12:44           ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17 13:35             ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-18 17:48               ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  3:32       ` [PATCH] x86, fpu, xen: Allocate fpu state for xen pv based on PVABI behavior Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  3:32       ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  3:33       ` [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17  3:35         ` [Xen-devel] " Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  3:43           ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17  4:12             ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  4:12             ` [Xen-devel] " Sarah Newman
2014-03-17  4:23               ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-20  0:00                 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-03-20  0:00                 ` [Xen-devel] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-03-20  2:29                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-20  2:29                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17  4:23               ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17 13:29             ` [Xen-devel] " David Vrabel
2014-03-19 13:21               ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-03-19 13:21               ` [Xen-devel] " Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-03-19 15:02                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-19 15:02                 ` [Xen-devel] " H. Peter Anvin
2014-06-23 13:08                   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2015-03-05 22:08                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-03-06 11:46                       ` [PATCHv4] x86, fpu: remove the logic of non-eager fpu mem allocation at the first usage David Vrabel
2015-03-06 11:46                       ` David Vrabel
2015-03-05 22:08                     ` [PATCHv1] x86: don't schedule when handling #NM exception H. Peter Anvin
2014-06-23 13:08                   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-03-17 13:29             ` David Vrabel
2014-03-17  3:43           ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17  3:35         ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17 12:19         ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2014-03-17 16:55           ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17 16:55           ` [Xen-devel] " H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17 17:05             ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-17 17:12               ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-18  8:14                 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-03-18  8:14                 ` [Xen-devel] " Ingo Molnar
2014-03-17 17:12               ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-17 17:14               ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17 17:14               ` [Xen-devel] " George Dunlap
2014-03-18 18:17                 ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-18 18:27                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-18 18:27                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-18 18:17                 ` Sarah Newman
2014-03-17 17:05             ` Jan Beulich
2014-03-17 12:19         ` George Dunlap
2014-03-17  3:33       ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-10 16:40 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-10 16:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-10 16:45 ` H. Peter Anvin
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-03-10 16:17 David Vrabel

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=53266841.6090308@prgmr.com \
    --to=srn@prgmr.com \
    --cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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.