Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg

[Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>]

On Sat, Oct 21, 2023 at 01:42:58AM +0800, Yosry Ahmed wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 10:23 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 9:18 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > kernel test robot noticed a -25.8% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops on:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: 51d74c18a9c61e7ee33bc90b522dd7f6e5b80bb5 ("[PATCH v2 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg")
> > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yosry-Ahmed/mm-memcg-change-flush_next_time-to-flush_last_time/20231010-112257
> > > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
> > > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231010032117.1577496-4-yosryahmed@google.com/
> > > patch subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg
> > >
> > > testcase: will-it-scale
> > > test machine: 104 threads 2 sockets (Skylake) with 192G memory
> > > parameters:
> > >
> > >         nr_task: 100%
> > >         mode: thread
> > >         test: fallocate1
> > >         cpufreq_governor: performance
> > >
> > >
> > > In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
> > >
> > > +------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -30.0% regression |
> > > | test machine     | 104 threads 2 sockets (Skylake) with 192G memory              |
> > > | test parameters  | cpufreq_governor=performance                                  |
> > > |                  | mode=thread                                                   |
> > > |                  | nr_task=50%                                                   |
> > > |                  | test=fallocate1                                               |
> > > +------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> > >
> >
> > Yosry, I don't think 25% to 30% regression can be ignored. Unless
> > there is a quick fix, IMO this series should be skipped for the
> > upcoming kernel open window.
> 
> I am currently looking into it. It's reasonable to skip the next merge
> window if a quick fix isn't found soon.
> 
> I am surprised by the size of the regression given the following:
>       1.12 ą  5%      +1.4        2.50 ą  2%
> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__mod_memcg_lruvec_state
> 
> IIUC we are only spending 1% more time in __mod_memcg_lruvec_state().

Yes, this is kind of confusing. And we have seen similar cases before,
espcially for micro benchmark like will-it-scale, stressng, netperf
etc, the change to those functions in hot path was greatly amplified
in the final benchmark score.

In a netperf case, https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220619150456.GB34471@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
the affected functions have around 10% change in perf's cpu-cycles,
and trigger 69% regression. IIRC, micro benchmarks are very sensitive
to those statistics update, like memcg's and vmstat.

Thanks,
Feng