Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1606271

Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 07:54:37AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/16/2017 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 15-03-17 14:38:34, Tim Chen wrote:
> >> max_active:   time
> >> 1             8.9s   ±0.5%
> >> 2             5.65s  ±5.5%
> >> 4             4.84s  ±0.16%
> >> 8             4.77s  ±0.97%
> >> 16            4.85s  ±0.77%
> >> 32            6.21s  ±0.46%
> > 
> > OK, but this will depend on the HW, right? Also now that I am looking at
> > those numbers more closely. This was about unmapping 320GB area and
> > using 4 times more CPUs you managed to half the run time. Is this really
> > worth it? Sure if those CPUs were idle then this is a clear win but if
> > the system is moderately busy then it doesn't look like a clear win to
> > me.
> 
> This still suffers from zone lock contention.  It scales much better if
> we are freeing memory from more than one zone.  We would expect any
> other generic page allocator scalability improvements to really help
> here, too.
> 
> Aaron, could you make sure to make sure that the memory being freed is
> coming from multiple NUMA nodes?  It might also be interesting to boot

The test machine has 4 nodes and each has 128G memory.
With the test size of 320G, at least 3 nodes are involved.

But since the test is done on an idle system, I *guess* the allocated
memory is physically continuous. Then when they are freed in virtually
continuous order, it's likely that one after another physically continous
1G chunk are sent to the free kworkers. So roughly for the first
128 1G chunks, those workers will all be contending on the same zone.
(well, it shouldn't be 128 kworkers all runnable contending for the same
lock since early launched kworkers will have exited after finishing its
job before some later launched kworkers start).

> with a fake NUMA configuration with a *bunch* of nodes to see what the
> best case looks like when zone lock contention isn't even in play where
> one worker would be working on its own zone.

Good idea, will post results here once I finished the test.

Thanks.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-15 10:10 +0100
  [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: parallel free pages Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-15 10:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: parallel free pages "Hillf Danton" <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com> - 2017-03-15 10:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] mm: parallel free pages Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-15 13:00 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-15 15:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-15 16:50 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-15 17:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-15 22:40 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-16 10:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-16 19:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 09:10 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 09:30 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-17 13:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 14:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-17 14:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2017-03-17 14:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2017-03-17 14:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> - 2017-03-21 16:10 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-22 09:20 +0100
              Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-24 08:10 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-21 16:20 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-16 08:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-16 08:40 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-16 15:00 +0100
            Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-16 15:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz> - 2017-03-15 16:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-15 17:00 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-17 04:20 +0100
  Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] mm: support parallel free of memory Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com> - 2017-03-17 03:30 +0100

csiph-web