Re: [mm] 8cc621d2f4: fio.write_iops -21.8% regression

Minchan Kim
2021-05-25T15:16:52Z

On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 10:37:49AM -0700, Chris Goldsworthy wrote:
> Hi Minchan,
>
> This looks good to me, I just have some minor feedback.
>
> Thanks,

Hi Chris,

Thanks for the review. Please see below.

>
> Chris.
>
> On 2021-05-20 11:36, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 04:31:44PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Greeting,
> > >
> > > FYI, we noticed a -21.8% regression of fio.write_iops due to commit:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: 8cc621d2f45ddd3dc664024a647ee7adf48d79a5 ("mm: fs:
> > > invalidate BH LRU during page migration")
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > >
> > >
> > > in testcase: fio-basic
> > > on test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU
> > > @ 2.10GHz with 256G memory
> > > with following parameters:
> > >
> > > disk: 2pmem
> > > fs: ext4
> > > runtime: 200s
> > > nr_task: 50%
> > > time_based: tb
> > > rw: randwrite
> > > bs: 4k
> > > ioengine: libaio
> > > test_size: 200G
> > > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > > ucode: 0x5003006
> > >
> > > test-description: Fio is a tool that will spawn a number of threads
> > > or processes doing a particular type of I/O action as specified by
> > > the user.
> > > test-url: https://github.com/axboe/fio
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Details are as below:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > >
> > >
> > > To reproduce:
> > >
> > > git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> > > cd lkp-tests
> > > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is
> > > attached in this email
> > > bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml
> > > file for lkp run
> > > bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to insall the lkp-test in my machine by following above guide
> > but failed
> > due to package problems(I guess it's my problem since I use something
> > particular
> > environement). However, I guess it comes from increased miss ratio of
> > bh_lrus
> > since the patch caused more frequent invalidation of the bh_lrus calls
> > compared
> > to old. For example, lru_add_drain could be called from several hot
> > places(e.g.,
> > unmap and pagevec_release from several path) and it could keeps
> > invalidating
> > bh_lrus.
> >
> > IMO, we should move the overhead from such hot path to cold one. How
> > about this?
> >
> > From ebf4ede1cf32fb14d85f0015a3693cb8e1b8dbfe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 11:17:56 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] invalidate bh_lrus only at lru_add_drain_all
> >
> > Not-Yet-Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > mm/swap.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/swap.c b/mm/swap.c
> > index dfb48cf9c2c9..d6168449e28c 100644
> > --- a/mm/swap.c
> > +++ b/mm/swap.c
> > @@ -642,7 +642,6 @@ void lru_add_drain_cpu(int cpu)
> > pagevec_lru_move_fn(pvec, lru_lazyfree_fn);
> >
> > activate_page_drain(cpu);
> > - invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -725,6 +724,17 @@ void lru_add_drain(void)
> > local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > }
> >
> > +void lru_and_bh_lrus_drain(void)
> > +{
> > + int cpu;
> > +
> > + local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > + cpu = smp_processor_id();
> > + lru_add_drain_cpu(cpu);
> > + local_unlock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(cpu);
> > +}
> > +
>
> Nit: drop int cpu?

Do you mean to suggest using smp_processor_id at both places
instead of local varaible? Since the invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu
is called out of the lru_pvecs.lock, I wanted to express
the draining happens at the same CPU via storing the CPU.

>
> > void lru_add_drain_cpu_zone(struct zone *zone)
> > {
> > local_lock(&lru_pvecs.lock);
> > @@ -739,7 +749,7 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct work_struct,
> > lru_add_drain_work);
> >
> > static void lru_add_drain_per_cpu(struct work_struct *dummy)
> > {
> > - lru_add_drain();
> > + lru_and_bh_lrus_drain();
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -881,6 +891,7 @@ void lru_cache_disable(void)
> > __lru_add_drain_all(true);
> > #else
> > lru_add_drain();
> > + invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(smp_processor_id());
> > #endif
> > }
>
> Can't we replace the call to lru_add_drain() and
> invalidate_bh_lrus_cpu(smp_processor_id()) with a single call to
> lru_and_bh_lrus_drain()?

Good idea.

Thanks!