Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:05:59 -0800 | From | Chegu Vinod <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] pseudo-interleaving for automatic NUMA balancing |
| |
On 1/17/2014 1:12 PM, riel@redhat.com wrote: > The current automatic NUMA balancing code base has issues with > workloads that do not fit on one NUMA load. Page migration is > slowed down, but memory distribution between the nodes where > the workload runs is essentially random, often resulting in a > suboptimal amount of memory bandwidth being available to the > workload. > > In order to maximize performance of workloads that do not fit in one NUMA > node, we want to satisfy the following criteria: > 1) keep private memory local to each thread > 2) avoid excessive NUMA migration of pages > 3) distribute shared memory across the active nodes, to > maximize memory bandwidth available to the workload > > This patch series identifies the NUMA nodes on which the workload > is actively running, and balances (somewhat lazily) the memory > between those nodes, satisfying the criteria above. > > As usual, the series has had some performance testing, but it > could always benefit from more testing, on other systems. > > Changes since v1: > - fix divide by zero found by Chegu Vinod > - improve comment, as suggested by Peter Zijlstra > - do stats calculations in task_numa_placement in local variables > > > Some performance numbers, with two 40-warehouse specjbb instances > on an 8 node system with 10 CPU cores per node, using a pre-cleanup > version of these patches, courtesy of Chegu Vinod: > > numactl manual pinning > spec1.txt: throughput = 755900.20 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec2.txt: throughput = 754914.40 SPECjbb2005 bops > > NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, with patches) > spec1.txt: throughput = 706439.84 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec2.txt: throughput = 729347.75 SPECjbb2005 bops > > NO-pinning results (Automatic NUMA balancing, without patches) > spec1.txt: throughput = 667988.47 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec2.txt: throughput = 638220.45 SPECjbb2005 bops > > No Automatic NUMA and NO-pinning results > spec1.txt: throughput = 544120.97 SPECjbb2005 bops > spec2.txt: throughput = 453553.41 SPECjbb2005 bops > > > My own performance numbers are not as relevant, since I have been > running with a more hostile workload on purpose, and I have run > into a scheduler issue that caused the workload to run on only > two of the four NUMA nodes on my test system... > > . >
Acked-by: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
----
Here are some results using the v2 version of the patches on an 8 socket box using SPECjbb2005 as a workload :
I) Eight 1-socket wide instances(10 warehouse threads each) :
Without patches With patches -------------------- ---------------- a) numactl pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 270620.04 273675.10 spec2.txt: throughput = 274115.33 272845.17 spec3.txt: throughput = 277830.09 272057.33 spec4.txt: throughput = 270898.52 270670.54 spec5.txt: throughput = 270397.30 270906.82 spec6.txt: throughput = 270451.93 268217.55 spec7.txt: throughput = 269511.07 269354.46 spec8.txt: throughput = 269386.06 270540.00
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results spec1.txt: throughput = 244333.41 248072.72 spec2.txt: throughput = 252166.99 251818.30 spec3.txt: throughput = 251365.58 258266.24 spec4.txt: throughput = 245247.91 256873.51 spec5.txt: throughput = 245579.68 247743.18 spec6.txt: throughput = 249767.38 256285.86 spec7.txt: throughput = 244570.64 255343.99 spec8.txt: throughput = 245703.60 254434.36
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 132959.73 136957.12 spec2.txt: throughput = 127937.11 129326.23 spec3.txt: throughput = 130697.10 125772.11 spec4.txt: throughput = 134978.49 141607.58 spec5.txt: throughput = 127574.34 126748.18 spec6.txt: throughput = 138699.99 128597.95 spec7.txt: throughput = 133247.25 137344.57 spec8.txt: throughput = 124548.00 139040.98
------
II) Four 2-socket wide instances(20 warehouse threads each) :
Without patches With patches -------------------- ---------------- a) numactl pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 479931.16 472467.58 spec2.txt: throughput = 466652.15 466237.10 spec3.txt: throughput = 473591.51 466891.98 spec4.txt: throughput = 462346.62 466891.98
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results spec1.txt: throughput = 383758.29 437489.99 spec2.txt: throughput = 370926.06 435692.97 spec3.txt: throughput = 368872.72 444615.08 spec4.txt: throughput = 404422.82 435236.20
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 252752.12 231762.30 spec2.txt: throughput = 255391.51 253250.95 spec3.txt: throughput = 264764.00 263721.03 spec4.txt: throughput = 254833.39 242892.72
------
III) Two 4-socket wide instances(40 warehouse threads each)
Without patches With patches -------------------- ---------------- a) numactl pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 771340.84 769039.53 spec2.txt: throughput = 762184.48 760745.65
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results spec1.txt: throughput = 667182.98 720197.01 spec2.txt: throughput = 692564.11 739872.51
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 457079.28 467199.30 spec2.txt: throughput = 479790.47 456279.07
-----
IV) One 8-socket wide instance(80 warehouse threads)
Without patches With patches -------------------- ---------------- a) numactl pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 982113.03 985836.96
b)Automatic NUMA balancing results spec1.txt: throughput = 755615.94 843632.09
c)NO Automatic NUMA balancing and NO-pinning results spec1.txt: throughput = 671583.26 661768.54
| |