lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: NUMA performance comparison between three NUMA kernels and mainline. [Mid-size NUMA system edition.]

* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:

> > NUMA convergence latency measurements
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> > 'NUMA convergence' latency is the number of seconds a
> > workload takes to reach 'perfectly NUMA balanced' state.
> > This is measured on the CPU placement side: once it has
> > converged then memory typically follows within a couple of
> > seconds.
>
> This is a sortof misleading metric so be wary of it as the
> speed a workload converges is not necessarily useful. It only
> makes a difference for short-lived workloads or during phase
> changes. If the workload is short-lived, it's not interesting
> anyway. If the workload is rapidly changing phases then the
> migration costs can be a major factor and rapidly converging
> might actually be slower overall.
>
> The speed the workload converges will depend very heavily on
> when the PTEs are marked pte_numa and when the faults are
> incurred. If this is happening very rapidly then a workload
> will converge quickly *but* this can incur a high system CPU
> cost (PTE scanning, fault trapping etc). This metric can be
> gamed by always scanning rapidly but the overall performance
> may be worse.
>
> I'm not saying that this metric is not useful, it is. Just be
> careful of optimising for it. numacores system CPU usage has
> been really high in a number of benchmarks and it may be
> because you are optimising to minimise time to convergence.

You are missing a big part of the NUMA balancing picture here:
the primary use of 'latency of convergence' is to determine
whether a workload converges *at all*.

For example if you look at the 4-process / 8-threads-per-process
latency results:

[ Lower numbers are better. ]

[test unit] : v3.7 |balancenuma-v10| AutoNUMA-v28 | numa-u-v3 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4x8-convergence : 101.1 | 101.3 | 3.4 | 3.9 | secs

You'll see that balancenuma does not converge this workload.

Where does such a workload matter? For example in the 4x JVM
SPECjbb tests that Thomas Gleixner has reported today:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/10/437

There balancenuma does worse than AutoNUMA and the -v3 tree
exactly because it does not NUMA-converge as well (or at all).

> I'm trying to understand what you're measuring a bit better.
> Take 1x4 for example -- one process, 4 threads. If I'm reading
> this description then all 4 threads use the same memory. Is
> this correct? If so, this is basically a variation of numa01
> which is an adverse workload. [...]

No, 1x4 and 1x8 are like the SPECjbb JVM tests you have been
performing - not an 'adverse' workload. The threads of the JVM
are sharing memory significantly enough to justify moving them
on the same node.

> [...] balancenuma will not migrate memory in this case as
> it'll never get past the two-stage filter. If there are few
> threads, it might never get scheduled on a new node in which
> case it'll also do nothing.
>
> The correct action in this case is to interleave memory and
> spread the tasks between nodes but it lacks the information to
> do that. [...]

No, the correct action is to move related threads close to each
other.

> [...] This was deliberate as I was expecting numacore or
> autonuma to be rebased on top and I didn't want to collide.
>
> Does the memory requirement of all threads fit in a single
> node? This is related to my second question -- how do you
> define convergence?

NUMA-convergence is to achieve the ideal CPU and memory
placement of tasks.

> > The 'balancenuma' kernel does not converge any of the
> > workloads where worker threads or processes relate to each
> > other.
>
> I'd like to know if it is because the workload fits on one
> node. If the buffers are all really small, balancenuma would
> have skipped them entirely for example due to this check
>
> /* Skip small VMAs. They are not likely to be of relevance */
> if (((vma->vm_end - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT) < HPAGE_PMD_NR)
> continue;

No, the memory areas are larger than 2MB.

> Another possible explanation is that in the 4x4 case that the
> processes threads are getting scheduled on separate nodes. As
> each thread is sharing data it would not get past the
> two-stage filter.
>
> How realistic is it that threads are accessing the same data?

In practice? Very ...

> That looks like it would be a bad idea even from a caching
> perspective if the data is being updated. I would expect that
> the majority of HPC workloads would have each thread accessing
> mostly private data until the final stages where the results
> are aggregated together.

You tested such a workload many times in the past: the 4x JVM
SPECjbb test ...

> > NUMA workload bandwidth measurements
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > The other set of numbers I've collected are workload
> > bandwidth measurements, run over 20 seconds. Using 20
> > seconds gives a healthy mix of pre-convergence and
> > post-convergence bandwidth,
>
> 20 seconds is *really* short. That might not even be enough
> time for autonumas knumad thread to find the process and
> update it as IIRC it starts pretty slowly.

If you check the convergence latency tables you'll see that
AutoNUMA is able to converge within 20 seconds.

Thanks,

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-10 21:41    [W:3.172 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site