Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-30467-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
From: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 19:23:47 +0100
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>,
	Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org>,
	Oleksiy Avramchenko <oleksiy.avramchenko@sony.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] mm: vmalloc: Set nr_nodes based on CPUs in a
 system
Message-ID: <ZalssyzC8_HsFZON@pc636>
References: <20240102184633.748113-1-urezki@gmail.com>
 <20240102184633.748113-11-urezki@gmail.com>
 <ZZ+z8vBl645FvxPq@dread.disaster.area>
 <ZaWC6TRs4P1vq9TQ@pc636>
 <Zab9yuUiz8OCMOHw@dread.disaster.area>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zab9yuUiz8OCMOHw@dread.disaster.area>

On Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 09:06:02AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 08:09:29PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:46:32PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki (Sony) wrote:
> > > > A number of nodes which are used in the alloc/free paths is
> > > > set based on num_possible_cpus() in a system. Please note a
> > > > high limit threshold though is fixed and corresponds to 128
> > > > nodes.
> > > 
> > > Large CPU count machines are NUMA machines. ALl of the allocation
> > > and reclaim is NUMA node based i.e. a pgdat per NUMA node.
> > > 
> > > Shrinkers are also able to be run in a NUMA aware mode so that
> > > per-node structures can be reclaimed similar to how per-node LRU
> > > lists are scanned for reclaim.
> > > 
> > > Hence I'm left to wonder if it would be better to have a vmalloc
> > > area per pgdat (or sub-node cluster) rather than just base the
> > > number on CPU count and then have an arbitrary maximum number when
> > > we get to 128 CPU cores. We can have 128 CPU cores in a
> > > single socket these days, so not being able to scale the vmalloc
> > > areas beyond a single socket seems like a bit of a limitation.
> > > 
> > >
> > > Hence I'm left to wonder if it would be better to have a vmalloc
> > > area per pgdat (or sub-node cluster) rather than just base the
> > >
> > > Scaling out the vmalloc areas in a NUMA aware fashion allows the
> > > shrinker to be run in numa aware mode, which gets rid of the need
> > > for the global shrinker to loop over every single vmap area in every
> > > shrinker invocation. Only the vm areas on the node that has a memory
> > > shortage need to be scanned and reclaimed, it doesn't need reclaim
> > > everything globally when a single node runs out of memory.
> > > 
> > > Yes, this may not give quite as good microbenchmark scalability
> > > results, but being able to locate each vm area in node local memory
> > > and have operation on them largely isolated to node-local tasks and
> > > vmalloc area reclaim will work much better on large multi-socket
> > > NUMA machines.
> > > 
> > Currently i fix the max nodes number to 128. This is because i do not
> > have an access to such big NUMA systems whereas i do have an access to
> > around ~128 ones. That is why i have decided to stop on that number as
> > of now.
> 
> I suspect you are confusing number of CPUs with number of NUMA nodes.
> 
I do not think so :)

>
> A NUMA system with 128 nodes is a large NUMA system that will have
> thousands of CPU cores, whilst above you talk about basing the
> count on CPU cores and that a single socket can have 128 cores?
> 
> > We can easily set nr_nodes to num_possible_cpus() and let it scale for
> > anyone. But before doing this, i would like to give it a try as a first
> > step because i have not tested it well on really big NUMA systems.
> 
> I don't think you need to have large NUMA systems to test it. We
> have the "fakenuma" feature for a reason.  Essentially, once you
> have enough CPU cores that catastrophic lock contention can be
> generated in a fast path (can take as few as 4-5 CPU cores), then
> you can effectively test NUMA scalability with fakenuma by creating
> nodes with >=8 CPUs each.
> 
> This is how I've done testing of numa aware algorithms (like
> shrinkers!) for the past decade - I haven't had direct access to a
> big NUMA machine since 2008, yet it's relatively trivial to test
> NUMA based scalability algorithms without them these days.
> 
I see your point. NUMA-aware scalability require reworking adding extra
layer that allows such scaling.

If the socket has 256 CPUs, how do scale VAs inside that node among
those CPUs?

--
Uladzislau Rezki