linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
	Hyeonggon Yoo <42.hyeyoo@gmail.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: [RFC Patch 2/3] mm/slub: double per-cpu partial number for large systems
Date: Tue,  5 Sep 2023 22:13:47 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230905141348.32946-3-feng.tang@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230905141348.32946-1-feng.tang@intel.com>

There are reports about severe lock contention for slub's per-node
'list_lock' in 'hackbench' test, [1][2], on server systems. And
similar contention is also seen when running 'mmap1' case of
will-it-scale on big systems. As the trend is one processor (socket)
will have more and more CPUs (100+, 200+), the contention could be
much more severe and becomes a scalability issue.

One way to help reducing the contention is to double the per-cpu
partial number for large systems.

Following is some performance data, where it shows big improvment
in will-it-scale/mmap1 case, but no ovbious change for the 'hackbench'
test.

The patch itself only makes the per-cpu partial number 2X, and for
better analysis, the 4X case is also profiled

will-it-scale/mmap1
-------------------
Run will-it-scale benchmark's 'mmap1' test case on a 2 socket Sapphire
Rapids server (112 cores / 224 threads) with 256 GB DRAM, run 3
configurations with parallel test threads of 25%, 50% and 100% of
number of CPUs, and the data is (base is vanilla v6.5 kernel):

		  base             base + 2X patch        base + 4X patch
wis-mmap1-25	 223670    +12.7%     251999     +34.9%     301749    per_process_ops
wis-mmap1-50	 186020    +28.0%     238067     +55.6%     289521    per_process_ops
wis-mmap1-100	  89200    +40.7%     125478     +62.4%     144858    per_process_ops

Take the perf-profile comparasion of 50% test case, the lock contention
is greatly reduced:

     43.80           -11.5       32.27           -27.9       15.91   pp.self.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath

hackbench
---------

Run same hackbench testcase  mentioned in [1], use same HW/SW as will-it-scale:

		  base             base + 2X patch        base + 4X patch
hackbench	759951      +0.2%    761506      +0.5%     763972     hackbench.throughput

[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/all/202307172140.3b34825a-oliver.sang@intel.com/
[2]. ttps://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZORaUsd+So+tnyMV@chenyu5-mobl2/

Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
---
 mm/slub.c | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)

diff --git a/mm/slub.c b/mm/slub.c
index f7940048138c..51ca6dbaad09 100644
--- a/mm/slub.c
+++ b/mm/slub.c
@@ -4361,6 +4361,13 @@ static void set_cpu_partial(struct kmem_cache *s)
 	else
 		nr_objects = 120;
 
+	/*
+	 * Give larger system more per-cpu partial slabs to reduce/postpone
+	 * contending per-node partial list.
+	 */
+	if (num_cpus() >= 32)
+		nr_objects *= 2;
+
 	slub_set_cpu_partial(s, nr_objects);
 #endif
 }
-- 
2.27.0



  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-09-05 14:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-09-05 14:13 [RFC Patch 0/3] mm/slub: reduce contention for per-node list_lock for large systems Feng Tang
2023-09-05 14:13 ` [RFC Patch 1/3] mm/slub: increase the maximum slab order to 4 for big systems Feng Tang
2023-09-12  4:52   ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-09-12 15:52     ` Feng Tang
2023-09-05 14:13 ` Feng Tang [this message]
2023-09-05 14:13 ` [RFC Patch 3/3] mm/slub: setup maxim per-node partial according to cpu numbers Feng Tang
2023-09-12  4:48   ` Hyeonggon Yoo
2023-09-14  7:05     ` Feng Tang
2023-09-15  2:40       ` Lameter, Christopher
2023-09-15  5:05         ` Feng Tang
2023-09-15 16:13           ` Lameter, Christopher

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=20230905141348.32946-3-feng.tang@intel.com \
    --to=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=42.hyeyoo@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=roman.gushchin@linux.dev \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).