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;
From:   "Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory)" <elliott@hpe.com>
To:     'Daniel Jordan' <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
CC:     "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "aarcange@redhat.com" <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        "aaron.lu@intel.com" <aaron.lu@intel.com>,
        "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "alex.williamson@redhat.com" <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
        "bsd@redhat.com" <bsd@redhat.com>,
        "darrick.wong@oracle.com" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "jgg@mellanox.com" <jgg@mellanox.com>,
        "jwadams@google.com" <jwadams@google.com>,
        "jiangshanlai@gmail.com" <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        "mhocko@kernel.org" <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        "mike.kravetz@oracle.com" <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        "Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com" <Pavel.Tatashin@microsoft.com>,
        "prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com" <prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com>,
        "rdunlap@infradead.org" <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        "steven.sistare@oracle.com" <steven.sistare@oracle.com>,
        "tim.c.chen@intel.com" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>, "vbabka@suse.cz" <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
 initialization within each node
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
 initialization within each node
Thread-Index: AQHUdSj7cDxnfAHYlE+9G8mzBVcDKqVIX+eQgAQGcwCAAFfMgIAKmdYAgAt4pHA=
Date:   Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:12:28 +0000
Message-ID: <AT5PR8401MB1169AA00F542BA2E3204FC24ABD00@AT5PR8401MB1169.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References: <20181105165558.11698-1-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <20181105165558.11698-12-daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
 <AT5PR8401MB1169798EBEF1EE5EBA3ABFFFABC70@AT5PR8401MB1169.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20181112165412.vizeiv6oimsuxkbk@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
 <AT5PR8401MB1169B05F889BCF8EF113E053ABC10@AT5PR8401MB1169.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
 <20181119160137.72zha7dbsr3adkfs@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181119160137.72zha7dbsr3adkfs@ca-dmjordan1.us.oracle.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: hpe.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 2a8c98d8-972e-471f-5c58-08d653fd046e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Nov 2018 00:12:28.3176
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 105b2061-b669-4b31-92ac-24d304d195dc
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AT5PR8401MB0788
X-OriginatorOrg: hpe.com
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Jordan [mailto:daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 10:02 AM
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:15:46PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent Memory) wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, November 12, 2018 11:54 AM
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 03:48:14AM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Persistent
> > > Memory) wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel-
> > > > > owner@vger.kernel.org> On Behalf Of Daniel Jordan
> > > > > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2018 10:56 AM
> > > > > Subject: [RFC PATCH v4 11/13] mm: parallelize deferred struct page
> > > > > initialization within each node
> > > > >
> > ...
> > > > > In testing, a reasonable value turned out to be about a quarter of the
> > > > > CPUs on the node.
> > > > ...
> > > > > +	/*
> > > > > +	 * We'd like to know the memory bandwidth of the chip to
> > > > >         calculate the
> > > > > +	 * most efficient number of threads to start, but we can't.
> > > > > +	 * In testing, a good value for a variety of systems was a
> > > > >         quarter of the CPUs on the node.
> > > > > +	 */
> > > > > +	nr_node_cpus = DIV_ROUND_UP(cpumask_weight(cpumask), 4);
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You might want to base that calculation on and limit the threads to
> > > > physical cores, not hyperthreaded cores.
> > >
> > > Why?  Hyperthreads can be beneficial when waiting on memory.  That said, I
> > > don't have data that shows that in this case.
> >
> > I think that's only if there are some register-based calculations to do while
> > waiting. If both threads are just doing memory accesses, they'll both stall, and
> > there doesn't seem to be any benefit in having two contexts generate the IOs
> > rather than one (at least on the systems I've used). I think it takes longer
> > to switch contexts than to just turnaround the next IO.
> 
> (Sorry for the delay, Plumbers is over now...)
> 
> I guess we're both just waving our hands without data.  I've only got x86, so
> using a quarter of the CPUs rules out HT on my end.  Do you have a system that
> you can test this on, where using a quarter of the CPUs will involve HT?

I ran a short test with:
* HPE ProLiant DL360 Gen9 system
* Intel Xeon E5-2699 CPU with 18 physical cores (0-17) and 
  18 hyperthreaded cores (36-53)
* DDR4 NVDIMM-Ns (which run at regular DRAM DIMM speeds)
* fio workload generator
* cores on one CPU socket talking to a pmem device on the same CPU
* large (1 MiB) random writes (to minimize the threads getting CPU cache
  hits from each other)

Results:
* 31.7 GB/s    four threads, four physical cores (0,1,2,3)
* 22.2 GB/s    four threads, two physical cores (0,1,36,37)
* 21.4 GB/s    two threads, two physical cores (0,1)
* 12.1 GB/s    two threads, one physical core (0,36)
* 11.2 GB/s    one thread, one physical core (0)

So, I think it's important that the initialization threads run on
separate physical cores.

For the number of cores to use, one approach is:
    memory bandwidth (number of interleaved channels * speed)
divided by 
    CPU core max sustained write bandwidth

For example, this 2133 MT/s system is roughly:
    68 GB/s    (4 * 17 GB/s nominal)
divided by
    11.2 GB/s  (one core's performance)
which is 
    6 cores

ACPI HMAT will report that 68 GB/s number.  I'm not sure of
a good way to discover the 11.2 GB/s number.


fio job file:
[global]
direct=1
ioengine=sync
norandommap
randrepeat=0
bs=1M
runtime=20
time_based=1
group_reporting
thread
gtod_reduce=1
zero_buffers
cpus_allowed_policy=split
# pick the desired number of threads
numjobs=4
numjobs=2
numjobs=1

# CPU0: cores 0-17, hyperthreaded cores 36-53
[pmem0]
filename=/dev/pmem0
# pick the desired cpus_allowed list
cpus_allowed=0,1,2,3
cpus_allowed=0,1,36,37
cpus_allowed=0,36
cpus_allowed=0,1
cpus_allowed=0
rw=randwrite

Although most CPU time is in movnti instructions (non-temporal stores),
there is overhead in clearing the page cache and in the pmem block
driver; those won't be present in your initialization function. 
perf top shows:
  82.00%  [kernel]                [k] memcpy_flushcache
   5.23%  [kernel]                [k] gup_pgd_range
   3.41%  [kernel]                [k] __blkdev_direct_IO_simple
   2.38%  [kernel]                [k] pmem_make_request
   1.46%  [kernel]                [k] write_pmem
   1.29%  [kernel]                [k] pmem_do_bvec


---
Robert Elliott, HPE Persistent Memory