Received: by 2002:ac0:a5b6:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m51-v6csp2015453imm; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 04:10:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKIihX53rWdtt5nqt4oWY7EMr7NNd5OHXOmXWkO8Ww6GjoIf+OV3wmtUm9g4z0MUnlyInaG/ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:6b44:: with SMTP id g4-v6mr1542622plt.390.1528369844968; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 04:10:44 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1528369844; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=xy7ZHq+y8y/+eeJCHquPx+jFg8NmmcYOJOxmHtOEmOYUVVntTl0OQQlHOnSp9+D7tZ 2pqIukMDmt0hcRJUO12igQAA3hzaoGrjBBe8tze3ozTjTciiahXRemJ5C2eKkQzaYorB f/6HVI6SE0S6BHGZ6h8yMjetR/ZZAx5zXnY9Y8R1ktMEjyyJjVW2PCiRj+wllEh3Vvqd qmGMidqZECcanTJP5lrvwjsSxZPkh3b/hPF52X7jTGyK36OKTQdBT3L15hPcC7XGYkdf JGeHMqUiJNIRFu8LR5VqidOX9uFuqSK9P95T0P8+P7PeYNKpu5UM+pM9SGiBCqGCO9Nr qMsg== 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=j2y0VjhUFTuDCnaIlkNXNX3LFWCrPjhC+PYyyMYSHLc=; b=Sz9PClNBmIJFkpL2qJmvsBc4iPm4uimpA8CQnVfsOXsz1bn7j8LJzCVn1hp3EEC+LT GdiaD2lyNKN17wLLD2CXjhwE4xVKQYi/xN/8UP7k4mLpI2LAbVXMD2J1qpHULcyh4HZO SlwtHdnlAmpagpmHQB35eTOPAJu2Smk1lM43qEfURCJlxOMS3yHbTosf8b/cn26mBVw5 FCqCAtd5wKwEoRZHgBnmUKbj7pxUTzFFSv4G5N/1KCsQ6wYsksxZecSP9HS+/TzsdnjE lNBHKMABRruCdER6/Ix3KK5zde0BynOc6BzjjAO3ALNPrcL6SrAaWQB9/tKEVYolhJD1 qfbQ== 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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id p8-v6si15140938pgd.96.2018.06.07.04.10.30; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 04:10:44 -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; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753493AbeFGLHS (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 07:07:18 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:36848 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753088AbeFGLHR (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2018 07:07:17 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext-too.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4BBACA5; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 11:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 13:07:13 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Jakub Racek Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [4.17 regression] Performance drop on kernel-4.17 visible on Stream, Linpack and NAS parallel benchmarks Message-ID: <20180607110713.GJ32433@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <20180606122731.GB27707@jra-laptop.brq.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180606122731.GB27707@jra-laptop.brq.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [CCing Mel and MM mailing list] On Wed 06-06-18 14:27:32, Jakub Racek wrote: > Hi, > > There is a huge performance regression on the 2 and 4 NUMA node systems on > stream benchmark with 4.17 kernel compared to 4.16 kernel. Stream, Linpack > and NAS parallel benchmarks show upto 50% performance drop. > > When running for example 20 stream processes in parallel, we see the following behavior: > > * all processes are started at NODE #1 > * memory is also allocated on NODE #1 > * roughly half of the processes are moved to the NODE #0 very quickly. * > however, memory is not moved to NODE #0 and stays allocated on NODE #1 > > As the result, half of the processes are running on NODE#0 with memory being > still allocated on NODE#1. This leads to non-local memory accesses > on the high Remote-To-Local Memory Access Ratio on the numatop charts. > > So it seems that 4.17 is not doing a good job to move the memory to the right NUMA > node after the process has been moved. > > ----8<---- > > The above is an excerpt from performance testing on 4.16 and 4.17 kernels. > > For now I'm merely making sure the problem is reported. Do you have numa balancing enabled? -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs