Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:00:38 -0500
From:   Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: page_counter: relayout structure to reduce false
 sharing
Message-ID: <YAcQNuT0fnd9w1sC@cmpxchg.org>
References: <1611040814-33449-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <1611040814-33449-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 03:20:14PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> When checking a memory cgroup related performance regression [1],
> from the perf c2c profiling data, we found high false sharing for
> accessing 'usage' and 'parent'.
> 
> On 64 bit system, the 'usage' and 'parent' are close to each other,
> and easy to be in one cacheline (for cacheline size == 64+ B). 'usage'
> is usally written, while 'parent' is usually read as the cgroup's
> hierarchical counting nature.
> 
> So move the 'parent' to the end of the structure to make sure they
> are in different cache lines.
> 
> Following are some performance data with the patch, against
> v5.11-rc1. [ In the data, A means a platform with 2 sockets 48C/96T,
> B is a platform of 4 sockests 72C/144T, and if a %stddev will be
> shown bigger than 2%, P100/P50 means number of test tasks equals
> to 100%/50% of nr_cpu]
> 
> will-it-scale/malloc1
> ---------------------
> 	   v5.11-rc1			v5.11-rc1+patch
> 
> A-P100	     15782 ?  2%      -0.1%      15765 ?  3%  will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> A-P50	     21511            +8.9%      23432        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> B-P100	      9155            +2.2%       9357        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> B-P50	     10967            +7.1%      11751 ?  2%  will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> 
> will-it-scale/pagefault2
> ------------------------
> 	   v5.11-rc1			v5.11-rc1+patch
> 
> A-P100	     79028            +3.0%      81411        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> A-P50	    183960 ?  2%      +4.4%     192078 ?  2%  will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> B-P100	     85966            +9.9%      94467 ?  3%  will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> B-P50	    198195            +9.8%     217526        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> 
> fio (4k/1M is block size)
> -------------------------
> 	   v5.11-rc1			v5.11-rc1+patch
> 
> A-P50-r-4k     16881 ?  2%    +1.2%      17081 ?  2%  fio.read_bw_MBps
> A-P50-w-4k      3931          +4.5%       4111 ?  2%  fio.write_bw_MBps
> A-P50-r-1M     15178          -0.2%      15154        fio.read_bw_MBps
> A-P50-w-1M      3924          +0.1%       3929        fio.write_bw_MBps
> 
> [1].https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201102091543.GM31092@shao2-debian/
> Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>
> Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
> Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>

Thanks!