Re: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and there is concurrent user

[Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>]

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
> > > > > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
> > > > > This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
> > > > > faulting thread who can get hugepages to get a SIGBUS signal.
> > > > > 
> > > > > To solve this problem, we already have a nice solution, that is,
> > > > > a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. This blocks other threads to dive into
> > > > > a fault handler. This solve the problem clearly, but it introduce
> > > > > performance degradation, because it serialize all fault handling.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Now, I try to remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex to get rid of
> > > > > performance degradation.
> > > > 
> > > > So the whole point of the patch is to improve performance, but the
> > > > changelog doesn't include any performance measurements!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't really deal with hugetlbfs any more and I have not examined this
> > > series but I remember why I never really cared about this mutex. It wrecks
> > > fault scalability but AFAIK fault scalability almost never mattered for
> > > workloads using hugetlbfs.  The most common user of hugetlbfs by far is
> > > sysv shared memory. The memory is faulted early in the lifetime of the
> > > workload and after that it does not matter. At worst, it hurts application
> > > startup time but that is still poor motivation for putting a lot of work
> > > into removing the mutex.
> > 
> > Yep, important hugepage workloads initially pound heavily on this lock,
> > then it naturally decreases.
> > 
> > > Microbenchmarks will be able to trigger problems in this area but it'd
> > > be important to check if any workload that matters is actually hitting
> > > that problem.
> > 
> > I was thinking of writing one to actually get some numbers for this
> > patchset -- I don't know of any benchmark that might stress this lock. 
> > 
> > However I first measured the amount of cycles it costs to start an
> > Oracle DB and things went south with these changes. A simple 'startup
> > immediate' calls hugetlb_fault() ~5000 times. For a vanilla kernel, this
> > costs ~7.5 billion cycles and with this patchset it goes up to ~27.1
> > billion. While there is naturally a fair amount of variation, these
> > changes do seem to do more harm than good, at least in real world
> > scenarios.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I think that number of cycles is not proper to measure this patchset,
> because cycles would be wasted by fault handling failure. Instead, it
> targeted improved elapsed time. Could you tell me how long it
> takes to fault all of it's hugepages?
> 
> Anyway, this order of magnitude still seems a problem. :/
> 
> I guess that cycles are wasted by zeroing hugepage in fault-path like as
> Andrew pointed out.
> 
> I will send another patches to fix this problem.

Hello, Davidlohr.

Here goes the fix on top of this series.
Thanks.

-------------->8---------------------------