Re: [LKP] [mm] 3484b2de949: -46.2% aim7.jobs-per-min

Huang Ying
2015-03-23T08:46:27Z

On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 10:26 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 01:34:59PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > Hi, Mel,
> >
> > On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 15:30 +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 01:46 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 03:21:36PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > > > > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> > > > >
> > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > > > > commit 3484b2de9499df23c4604a513b36f96326ae81ad ("mm: rearrange zone fields into read-only, page alloc, statistics and page reclaim lines")
> > > > >
> > > > > The perf cpu-cycles for spinlock (zone->lock) increased a lot. I suspect there are some cache ping-pong or false sharing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure about this result? I ran similar tests here and found that
> > > > there was a major regression introduced near there but it was commit
> > > > 05b843012335 ("mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter") that
> > > > cause the problem and it was later reverted. On local tests on a 4-node
> > > > machine, commit 3484b2de9499df23c4604a513b36f96326ae81ad was within 1%
> > > > of the previous commit and well within the noise.
> > >
> > > After applying the below debug patch, the performance regression
> > > restored. So I think we can root cause this regression to be cache line
> > > alignment related issue?
> > >
> > > If my understanding were correct, after the 3484b2de94, lock and low
> > > address area free_area are in the same cache line, so that the cache
> > > line of the lock and the low address area of free_area will be switched
> > > between MESI "E" and "S" state because it is written in one CPU (page
> > > allocating with free_area) and frequently read (spinning on lock) in
> > > another CPU.
> >
> > What do you think about this?
> >
>
> My attention is occupied by the automatic NUMA regression at the moment
> but I haven't forgotten this. Even with the high client count, I was not
> able to reproduce this so it appears to depend on the number of CPUs
> available to stress the allocator enough to bypass the per-cpu allocator
> enough to contend heavily on the zone lock. I'm hoping to think of a
> better alternative than adding more padding and increasing the cache
> footprint of the allocator but so far I haven't thought of a good
> alternative. Moving the lock to the end of the freelists would probably
> address the problem but still increases the footprint for order-0
> allocations by a cache line.

Any update on this? Do you have some better idea? I guess this may be
fixed via putting some fields that are only read during order-0
allocation with the same cache line of lock, if there are any.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying