[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: support fastpath if NUMA is enabled with numa off
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 06:32:50PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 05:37:41PM +0900, Janghyuck Kim wrote:
> > Architecture might support fake node when CONFIG_NUMA is enabled but any
> > node settings were supported by ACPI or device tree. In this case,
> > getting memory policy during memory allocation path is meaningless.
> >
> > Moreover, performance degradation was observed in the minor page fault
> > test, which is provided by (
> > Average faults/sec of enabling NUMA with fake node was 5~6 % worse than
> > disabling NUMA. To reduce this performance regression, fastpath is
> > introduced. fastpath can skip the memory policy checking if NUMA is
> > enabled but it uses fake node. If architecture doesn't support fake
> > node, fastpath affects nothing for memory allocation path.
> This patch doesn't even apply to the current kernel, but putting that
> aside, what's the expensive part of the current code? That is,
> comparing performance stats between this numa_off enabled and numa_off
> disabled, where do you see taking a lot of time?

mempolicy related code that I skipped by this patch took a short time,
taking only a few tens of nanoseconds that difficult to measure by
sched_clock's degree of precision. But it can be affect the minor page
fault test with large buffer size, because one page fault handling takes
several ms. As I replied in previous mail, performance regression has
been reduced from 5~6% to 2~3%.

 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-17 14:05    [W:0.128 / U:1.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site