From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pd0-f178.google.com (mail-pd0-f178.google.com [209.85.192.178]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8C56B0037 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 04:15:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f178.google.com with SMTP id fp1so1356238pdb.23 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e28smtp07.in.ibm.com (e28smtp07.in.ibm.com. [122.248.162.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id pq7si16042132pac.440.2014.04.30.01.15.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:15:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp07.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:45:34 +0530 Received: from d28relay05.in.ibm.com (d28relay05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.62]) by d28dlp01.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28E93E0057 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:45:51 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay05.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s3U8FcMR5112156 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:45:38 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s3U8FMTl021455 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:45:23 +0530 Message-ID: <5360B119.2090007@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:45:21 +0530 From: Madhavan Srinivasan MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] powerpc/pseries: init fault_around_order for pseries References: <1398675690-16186-1-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1398675690-16186-3-git-send-email-maddy@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20140429070632.GB27951@gmail.com> <87d2fz47tg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> In-Reply-To: <87d2fz47tg.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Rusty Russell , Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de, ak@linux.intel.com, peterz@infradead.org, dave.hansen@intel.com, Linus Torvalds On Wednesday 30 April 2014 12:34 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: > Ingo Molnar writes: >> * Madhavan Srinivasan wrote: >> >>> Performance data for different FAULT_AROUND_ORDER values from 4 socket >>> Power7 system (128 Threads and 128GB memory). perf stat with repeat of 5 >>> is used to get the stddev values. Test ran in v3.14 kernel (Baseline) and >>> v3.15-rc1 for different fault around order values. >>> >>> FAULT_AROUND_ORDER Baseline 1 3 4 5 8 >>> >>> Linux build (make -j64) >>> minor-faults 47,437,359 35,279,286 25,425,347 23,461,275 22,002,189 21,435,836 >>> times in seconds 347.302528420 344.061588460 340.974022391 348.193508116 348.673900158 350.986543618 >>> stddev for time ( +- 1.50% ) ( +- 0.73% ) ( +- 1.13% ) ( +- 1.01% ) ( +- 1.89% ) ( +- 1.55% ) >>> %chg time to baseline -0.9% -1.8% 0.2% 0.39% 1.06% >> >> Probably too noisy. > > A little, but 3 still looks like the winner. > >>> Linux rebuild (make -j64) >>> minor-faults 941,552 718,319 486,625 440,124 410,510 397,416 >>> times in seconds 30.569834718 31.219637539 31.319370649 31.434285472 31.972367174 31.443043580 >>> stddev for time ( +- 1.07% ) ( +- 0.13% ) ( +- 0.43% ) ( +- 0.18% ) ( +- 0.95% ) ( +- 0.58% ) >>> %chg time to baseline 2.1% 2.4% 2.8% 4.58% 2.85% >> >> Here it looks like a speedup. Optimal value: 5+. > > No, lower time is better. Baseline (no faultaround) wins. > > > etc. > > It's not a huge surprise that a 64k page arch wants a smaller value than > a 4k system. But I agree: I don't see much upside for FAO > 0, but I do > see downside. > > Most extreme results: > Order 1: 2% loss on recompile. 10% win 4% loss on seq. 9% loss random. > Order 3: 2% loss on recompile. 6% win 5% loss on seq. 14% loss on random. > Order 4: 2.8% loss on recompile. 10% win 7% loss on seq. 9% loss on random. > >> I'm starting to suspect that maybe workloads ought to be given a >> choice in this matter, via madvise() or such. > > I really don't think they'll be able to use it; it'll change far too > much with machine and kernel updates. I think we should apply patch #1 > (with fixes) to make it a variable, then set it to 0 for PPC. > Ok. Will do. Thanks for review With regards Maddy > Cheers, > Rusty. > -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org