Received: by 10.213.65.68 with SMTP id h4csp271206imn; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELuiU7S2F7ajpMwsZuHQiS2Y4UkPDGFvRexgkgAMULrvtCcw2WQy5ZK1MrufozEoTM4cnAqY X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:1665:: with SMTP id g92-v6mr22338813plg.195.1521682261086; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1521682261; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=aL4iZ2fLr9FJQzIX46YKhJnaoNSHqifnOieiP+EpShxFQBff5hOOBHdD7kWn3O05nQ irzlwZ/hCUTh5IPS3DWqVKjPOtwR/CygK9+bnJbK6UCi6JpyKx3Q4Aq4a5vJCjT1m1w8 eO99Lj2VPi+lwWT8T2YPiWXIxo9aQJ0BEsBoocC+pRW7PZQlrmtvcAMBXp8xRIopGBER sL72qGb/bxD8QGN+I/1/Tiswb0YUPLEmzTkhVZsSbSa4CvpguYJIxgqFlD3UHs873YVr i/+nuNlbYj5NeanZIl1oULObDDR0QCei9NG/yQC3R6K0PZyEOhCFoTg6OtMXEhKoccUc bs7Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=EmHtxMisZFy3t68zq2c2JXWjSBHvnWV76pSb2pTwunI=; b=k8fgdjQztZ1CZJTHl7Z46Wqeh1K7ynSVozcFtiMiAdy5w+zA7InjREE/nKzN7lp0Mw bvixu/T2JRP2kd3lTuwcG75dtUiBiebW0a0A75ezUyTg5Dwth0v8Iem8k2dnb7eL4H4A aG4rlnYsW6VjhUiqMTXHXFweAJ8IfUkvSxkrr5ZEUwOVOVKwWjIARO4GoDC/pgQL61Lj r3rhPz8vcBv+HXpD0d+SMoxaLHuee7TFtuwsITY7l50lHTDEkMaga2BHbkW6xK8NMrjR rvQNYgb3xTeoyYtzR/QdNUd0Dl7ped/x9n9t8o3yY5xkVShBah1vjySOcRQ+ZY6I5frX Nr3g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id m10si3661269pgs.236.2018.03.21.18.30.46; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753188AbeCVB3r (ORCPT + 99 others); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:29:47 -0400 Received: from mga12.intel.com ([192.55.52.136]:35221 "EHLO mga12.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752345AbeCVB3p (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:29:45 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga106.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2018 18:29:44 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,342,1517904000"; d="scan'208";a="27793927" Received: from aaronlu.sh.intel.com (HELO intel.com) ([10.239.159.135]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Mar 2018 18:29:42 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:30:49 +0800 From: Aaron Lu To: Daniel Jordan Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Vlastimil Babka , Andrew Morton , Huang Ying , Dave Hansen , Kemi Wang , Tim Chen , Andi Kleen , Michal Hocko , Mel Gorman , Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] Eliminate zone->lock contention for will-it-scale/page_fault1 and parallel free Message-ID: <20180322013049.GA4056@intel.com> References: <20180320085452.24641-1-aaron.lu@intel.com> <1dfd4b33-6eff-160e-52fd-994d9bcbffed@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1dfd4b33-6eff-160e-52fd-994d9bcbffed@oracle.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:44:25PM -0400, Daniel Jordan wrote: > On 03/20/2018 04:54 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > ...snip... > > reduced zone->lock contention on free path from 35% to 1.1%. Also, it > > shows good result on parallel free(*) workload by reducing zone->lock > > contention from 90% to almost zero(lru lock increased from almost 0 to > > 90% though). > > Hi Aaron, I'm looking through your series now. Just wanted to mention that I'm seeing the same interaction between zone->lock and lru_lock in my own testing. IOW, it's not enough to fix just one or the other: both need attention to get good performance on a big system, at least in this microbenchmark we've both been using. Agree. > > There's anti-scaling at high core counts where overall system page faults per second actually decrease with more CPUs added to the test. This happens when either zone->lock or lru_lock contention are completely removed, but the anti-scaling goes away when both locks are fixed. > > Anyway, I'll post some actual data on this stuff soon. Looking forward to that, thanks. In the meantime, I'll also try your lru_lock optimization work on top of this patchset to see if the lock contention shifts back to zone->lock.