lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 13/14] mm, hugetlb: retry if failed to allocate and there is concurrent user
    On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 11:55:45AM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
    > Hi Joonsoo,
    >
    > Sorry about the delay...
    >
    > On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 11:11 +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
    > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 09:44:38AM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 10:48:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
    > > > > On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 14:01 +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
    > > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 05:02:02PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > > > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 15:53:59 +0900 Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> wrote:
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > If parallel fault occur, we can fail to allocate a hugepage,
    > > > > > > > because many threads dequeue a hugepage to handle a fault of same address.
    > > > > > > > This makes reserved pool shortage just for a little while and this cause
    > > > > > > > faulting thread who can get hugepages to get a SIGBUS signal.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > To solve this problem, we already have a nice solution, that is,
    > > > > > > > a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex. This blocks other threads to dive into
    > > > > > > > a fault handler. This solve the problem clearly, but it introduce
    > > > > > > > performance degradation, because it serialize all fault handling.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Now, I try to remove a hugetlb_instantiation_mutex to get rid of
    > > > > > > > performance degradation.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > So the whole point of the patch is to improve performance, but the
    > > > > > > changelog doesn't include any performance measurements!
    > > > > > >
    > > > > >
    > > > > > I don't really deal with hugetlbfs any more and I have not examined this
    > > > > > series but I remember why I never really cared about this mutex. It wrecks
    > > > > > fault scalability but AFAIK fault scalability almost never mattered for
    > > > > > workloads using hugetlbfs. The most common user of hugetlbfs by far is
    > > > > > sysv shared memory. The memory is faulted early in the lifetime of the
    > > > > > workload and after that it does not matter. At worst, it hurts application
    > > > > > startup time but that is still poor motivation for putting a lot of work
    > > > > > into removing the mutex.
    > > > >
    > > > > Yep, important hugepage workloads initially pound heavily on this lock,
    > > > > then it naturally decreases.
    > > > >
    > > > > > Microbenchmarks will be able to trigger problems in this area but it'd
    > > > > > be important to check if any workload that matters is actually hitting
    > > > > > that problem.
    > > > >
    > > > > I was thinking of writing one to actually get some numbers for this
    > > > > patchset -- I don't know of any benchmark that might stress this lock.
    > > > >
    > > > > However I first measured the amount of cycles it costs to start an
    > > > > Oracle DB and things went south with these changes. A simple 'startup
    > > > > immediate' calls hugetlb_fault() ~5000 times. For a vanilla kernel, this
    > > > > costs ~7.5 billion cycles and with this patchset it goes up to ~27.1
    > > > > billion. While there is naturally a fair amount of variation, these
    > > > > changes do seem to do more harm than good, at least in real world
    > > > > scenarios.
    > > >
    > > > Hello,
    > > >
    > > > I think that number of cycles is not proper to measure this patchset,
    > > > because cycles would be wasted by fault handling failure. Instead, it
    > > > targeted improved elapsed time.
    >
    > Fair enough, however the fact of the matter is this approach does en up
    > hurting performance. Regarding total startup time, I didn't see hardly
    > any differences, with both vanilla and this patchset it takes close to
    > 33.5 seconds.
    >
    > > Could you tell me how long it
    > > > takes to fault all of it's hugepages?
    > > >
    > > > Anyway, this order of magnitude still seems a problem. :/
    > > >
    > > > I guess that cycles are wasted by zeroing hugepage in fault-path like as
    > > > Andrew pointed out.
    > > >
    > > > I will send another patches to fix this problem.
    > >
    > > Hello, Davidlohr.
    > >
    > > Here goes the fix on top of this series.
    >
    > ... and with this patch we go from 27 down to 11 billion cycles, so this
    > approach still costs more than what we currently have. A perf stat shows
    > that an entire 1Gb huge page aware DB startup costs around ~30 billion
    > cycles on a vanilla kernel, so the impact of hugetlb_fault() is
    > definitely non trivial and IMO worth considering.

    Really thanks for your help. :)

    >
    > Now, I took my old patchset (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/26/299) for a
    > ride and things do look quite better, which is basically what Andrew was
    > suggesting previously anyway. With the hash table approach the startup
    > time did go down to ~25.1 seconds, which is a nice -24.7% time
    > reduction, with hugetlb_fault() consuming roughly 5.3 billion cycles.
    > This hash table was on a 80 core system, so since we do the power of two
    > round up we end up with 256 entries -- I think we can do better if we
    > enlarger further, maybe something like statically 1024, or probably
    > better, 8-ish * nr cpus.
    >
    > Thoughts? Is there any reason why we cannot go with this instead? Yes,
    > we still keep the mutex, but the approach is (1) proven better for
    > performance on real world workloads and (2) far less invasive.

    I have no more idea to improve my patches now, so I agree with your approach.
    When I reviewed your approach last time, I found one race condition. In that
    time, I didn't think of a solution about it. If you resend it, I will review
    and re-think about it.

    Thanks.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2014-01-06 01:41    [W:2.562 / U:0.044 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site