Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] 98c9daf5ae: aim7.jobs-per-min -29.4% regression

[Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 03:38:26PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 05:14:16PM GMT, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 03:53:25PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > > hi, Roman,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:18:39PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:14:31PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > > > > hi, Roman Gushchin,
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:03:31PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:04:48PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > kernel test robot noticed a -29.4% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min on:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > commit: 98c9daf5ae6be008f78c07b744bcff7bcc6e98da ("mm: memcg: guard memcg1-specific members of struct mem_cgroup_per_node")
> > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > thank you for the report!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I'd expect that the regression should be fixed by the commit
> > > > > > "mm: memcg: add cache line padding to mem_cgroup_per_node".
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Can you, please, confirm that it's not the case?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thank you!
> > > > > 
> > > > > in our this aim7 test, we found the performance partially recovered by
> > > > > "mm: memcg: add cache line padding to mem_cgroup_per_node" but not fully
> > > > 
> > > > Thank you for providing the detailed information!
> > > > 
> > > > Can you, please, check if the following patch resolves the regression entirely?
> > > 
> > > no. in our tests, the following patch has little impact.
> > > I directly apply it upon 6df13230b6 (if this is not the proper applyment, please
> > > let me know, thanks)
> > 
> > Hm, interesting. And thank you for the confirmation, you did everything correct.
> > Because the only thing the original patch did was a removal of few fields from
> > the mem_cgroup_per_node struct, there are not many options left here.
> > Would you mind to try the following patch?
> > 
> > Thank you and really appreciate your help!
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/memcontrol.h b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > index 7e2eb091049a..0e5bf25d324f 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/memcontrol.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ struct mem_cgroup_per_node {
> > 
> >         /* Fields which get updated often at the end. */
> >         struct lruvec           lruvec;
> > +       CACHELINE_PADDING(_pad2_);
> >         unsigned long           lru_zone_size[MAX_NR_ZONES][NR_LRU_LISTS];
> >         struct mem_cgroup_reclaim_iter  iter;
> >  };
> > 
> > 
> 
> I suspect we need padding in the struct mem_cgroup instead of in struct
> mem_cgroup_per_node. I am planning to run some experiments and will
> report back once I have some convincing numbers.

You mean the regression was attributed to the wrong commit?
Because the blamed commit only removed few fields from the middle
of mem_cgroup_per_node.

Thanks