From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
nehagholkar@meta.com, abhishekd@meta.com, david@redhat.com,
nphamcs@gmail.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, kbusch@meta.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
donettom@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Promotion of Unmapped Page Cache Folios.
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2025 11:46:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y0z2jiom.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z5EhcQERseKShtGY@gourry-fedora-PF4VCD3F> (Gregory Price's message of "Wed, 22 Jan 2025 11:48:49 -0500")
Gregory Price <gourry@gourry.net> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 07:16:03PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Hi, Gregory,
>> > Test process:
>> > In each test, we do a linear read of a 128GB file into a buffer
>> > in a loop.
>>
>> IMHO, the linear reading isn't a very good test case for promotion. You
>> cannot test the hot-page selection algorithm. I think that it's better
>> to use something like normal accessing pattern. IIRC, it is available
>> in fio test suite.
>>
>
> Oh yes, I don't plan to drop RFC until I can get a real workload and
> probably fio running under this. This patch set is varying priority for
> me at the moment so the versions will take some time. My goal is to
> have something a bit more solid by LSF/MM, but not before.
No problem.
>> > 1) file allocated in DRAM with mechanisms off
>> > 2) file allocated in DRAM with balancing on but promotion off
>> > 3) file allocated in DRAM with balancing and promotion on
>> > (promotion check is negative because all pages are top tier)
>> > 4) file allocated in CXL with mechanisms off
>> > 5) file allocated in CXL with mechanisms on
>> >
>> > | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
>> > | DRAM Base | Promo On | TopTier Chk | CXL Base | Post-Promotion |
>> > | 7.5804 | 7.7586 | 7.9726 | 9.75 | 7.8941 |
>>
>> For 3, we can check whether the folio is in top-tier as the first step.
>> Will that introduce measurable overhead?
>>
>
> That is basically what 2 vs 3 is doing.
>
> Test 2 shows overhead of TPP on + pagecache promo off
> Test 3 shows overhead of TPP+Promo on, but all the memory is on top tier
>
> This shows the check as to whether the folio is in the top tier is
> actually somewhat expensive (~5% compared to baseline, ~2.7% compared to
> TPP-on Promo-off).
This is unexpected. Can we try to optimize it? For example, via using
a nodemask? node_is_toptier() is used in the mapped pages promotion
too (1 vs. 2 above). I guess that the optimization can reduce the
overhead there with measurable difference too.
> The goal of this linear, simple test is to isolate test behavior from
> the overhead - that makes it easy to test each individual variable (TPP,
> promo, top tier, etc) and see relative overheads.
>
> This basically gives us a reasonable floor/ceiling of expected overhead.
> If we see something wildly different than this during something like FIO
> or a real workload, then we'll know we missed something.
>
>> >
>> > This could be further limited by limiting the promotion rate via the
>> > existing knob, or by implementing a new knob detached from the existing
>> > promotion rate. There are merits to both approach.
>>
>> Have you tested with the existing knob? Whether does it help?
>>
>
> Not yet, this fell off my priority list before I could do additional
> testing. I will add that to my backlog.
No problem.
---
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-23 3:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-01-07 0:03 [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Promotion of Unmapped Page Cache Folios Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] migrate: Allow migrate_misplaced_folio_prepare() to accept a NULL VMA Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] memory: move conditionally defined enums use inside ifdef tags Gregory Price
2025-01-21 4:33 ` Bharata B Rao
2025-01-22 18:01 ` Gregory Price
2025-01-23 3:07 ` Bharata B Rao
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] memory: allow non-fault migration in numa_migrate_check path Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] vmstat: add page-cache numa hints Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] migrate: implement migrate_misplaced_folio_batch Gregory Price
2025-01-07 0:03 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] migrate,sysfs: add pagecache promotion Gregory Price
2025-01-22 11:16 ` [RFC v3 PATCH 0/5] Promotion of Unmapped Page Cache Folios Huang, Ying
2025-01-22 16:48 ` Gregory Price
2025-01-23 3:46 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2025-01-23 14:55 ` Gregory Price
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=87y0z2jiom.fsf@DESKTOP-5N7EMDA \
--to=ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=abhishekd@meta.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=donettom@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=gourry@gourry.net \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=kernel-team@meta.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nehagholkar@meta.com \
--cc=nphamcs@gmail.com \
/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.