Received: by 2002:a05:7412:d1aa:b0:fc:a2b0:25d7 with SMTP id ba42csp1649070rdb; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:17:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEujSSd5e4Uo9SEM7b155/nFbzLkfliKGxXJ/0P7rPY9CyrP2V6hH/2+2fLxIEDgpgSpIIf X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:22c8:b0:a35:6438:a935 with SMTP id q8-20020a17090622c800b00a356438a935mr1251017eja.55.1706707064706; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:17:44 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; t=1706707064; cv=pass; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=rt2xW5dJh6Vq11mWAfzq9lwaU53x00S2AUZ9ZDoB7n5m+3pMLh5HpYYv5+daOpg8zM /RiOjwi+aWZ9XNEEETUxUeSSDDiujvj6SkDtSTYc9qh93PrrBamTW7xbII2RRLSVa9GJ mWXYYzqf9PA6sqUAktKZeIUc9Ymq7F6aasanQ00XuGe/Bn/l4zGeHQWVVTvBXY+1+YL7 KLUNIumvrCQcfR5mM2iaYMCRlJABLk0TRfNGMFuY7wDE3A/lJCg5h0u0e8AljHxDPtR5 Fd+5jgdpHfyssxVf4xiC663bCFy7Lb7sWcvnhLwf3f41Knpz+o197Zj2KQnMoOzq0EiG OMkw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=2; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:list-unsubscribe :list-subscribe:list-id:precedence:date:message-id; bh=qYx4UZW/zJMD/qtYwjNRYQvgnr/y2IQogBw7jLPz8qI=; fh=ncOUbrsfn0zJfF+bdFA/8q5TCTwHPiClMJU/KUbdXBM=; b=TIrAkXbM4112Av5LIPJbmqZYDVF6mwtp3v1Yc/reWDgh8QczQMBaIUPDhipdAVhl/s oeu2156H/HFRV1R7OBEZPaXfkWnonLQU6vNJb5AWPixXIQBC8UrjOiZg0p0894gHYKcI QvjnG4+dcow8S//RXwXN4/xe8XD2DQGG0cWloYY5rZypiMJtxa2o+7NDRpZG7s60uxEy qBKtB3qwVqKCfLShknCB6p+tg5Fwd0zh+cEUlDGJvaFbuceZyAeNCUxMhvPSDqNi3J3S boaj9SABpOxFqC4WDsOdTsgFHw/7iihE9/aVvnbB2uhopLcdO6QpQGF/tYw+TpIdbzZY M2kA==; dara=google.com ARC-Authentication-Results: i=2; mx.google.com; arc=pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=arm.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=arm.com); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="linux-kernel+bounces-46479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUGwGG+lJAfQi2sJoMqx8S14KZTo3FB0OIlIRNpxysdeFCEdUw3GeIkNh8sY4D0MgBJuHNOFyCujtyq17tjLPlze30mqakPY6rddTMWzA== Return-Path: Received: from am.mirrors.kernel.org (am.mirrors.kernel.org. [147.75.80.249]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i15-20020a170906250f00b00a368bbc7152si291325ejb.995.2024.01.31.05.17.44 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:17:44 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; arc=pass (i=1 spf=pass spfdomain=arm.com dmarc=pass fromdomain=arm.com); spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-46479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="linux-kernel+bounces-46479-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org"; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: from smtp.subspace.kernel.org (wormhole.subspace.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by am.mirrors.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CD7C1F2726A for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:17:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A30F97E573; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D3777BB00; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:16:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706707018; cv=none; b=FBDQJMU1ZiBlEjQQ0jxa6lJNwuBCETQzf8cEv9zDfAXXQBwAqMWY0emWS86UguniM9mSZLIw/iP/j+O3sKCvkmYY0prJ8jYYCXKRhyMWLX3IPDVIfVKsjkGWlG4hUmQjnxwROTMeU/FFGP1pnOlus3MeWZfAQZrhBxBHZISivd8= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706707018; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OSZvUwKVsTpKN2T9iMyEpAVo3m3ZQaf/ssUmtJoZVQI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=RIhvrUKZddD11BEVwmIiMTq75ScGPxXXuGicjsYfewwJzDYvE+IN4gf8VyjdQQZ92P8fHo6TpL4KN9Nkf3WErCBux1v3wpGep+c/dOu8CsAcVRgEzEKeAL3KAbr9OQH/ui7wATWz+ix3ZI3vUKlB79IB49PkWTJbe62IhSj4tUE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC38DDA7; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:17:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.57.79.60] (unknown [10.57.79.60]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 599E13F738; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 05:16:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 13:16:48 +0000 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/15] mm/memory: optimize fork() with PTE-mapped THP Content-Language: en-GB To: David Hildenbrand , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Dinh Nguyen , Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , Christophe Leroy , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , "Naveen N. Rao" , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexander Gordeev , Gerald Schaefer , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Christian Borntraeger , Sven Schnelle , "David S. Miller" , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org References: <20240129124649.189745-1-david@redhat.com> <57eb82c7-4816-42a2-b5ab-cc221e289b21@arm.com> <714d0930-2202-48b6-9728-d248f820325e@arm.com> <30718fc8-15cf-41e4-922c-5cdbf00a0840@redhat.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: <30718fc8-15cf-41e4-922c-5cdbf00a0840@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 31/01/2024 12:56, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 31.01.24 13:37, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> On 31/01/2024 11:49, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>> On 31/01/2024 11:28, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>> On 31.01.24 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 31/01/2024 11:06, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>> On 31.01.24 11:43, Ryan Roberts wrote: >>>>>>> On 29/01/2024 12:46, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>>>>>>> Now that the rmap overhaul[1] is upstream that provides a clean interface >>>>>>>> for rmap batching, let's implement PTE batching during fork when processing >>>>>>>> PTE-mapped THPs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This series is partially based on Ryan's previous work[2] to implement >>>>>>>> cont-pte support on arm64, but its a complete rewrite based on [1] to >>>>>>>> optimize all architectures independent of any such PTE bits, and to >>>>>>>> use the new rmap batching functions that simplify the code and prepare >>>>>>>> for further rmap accounting changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We collect consecutive PTEs that map consecutive pages of the same large >>>>>>>> folio, making sure that the other PTE bits are compatible, and (a) adjust >>>>>>>> the refcount only once per batch, (b) call rmap handling functions only >>>>>>>> once per batch and (c) perform batch PTE setting/updates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While this series should be beneficial for adding cont-pte support on >>>>>>>> ARM64[2], it's one of the requirements for maintaining a total mapcount[3] >>>>>>>> for large folios with minimal added overhead and further changes[4] that >>>>>>>> build up on top of the total mapcount. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Independent of all that, this series results in a speedup during fork with >>>>>>>> PTE-mapped THP, which is the default with THPs that are smaller than a PMD >>>>>>>> (for example, 16KiB to 1024KiB mTHPs for anonymous memory[5]). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On an Intel Xeon Silver 4210R CPU, fork'ing with 1GiB of PTE-mapped folios >>>>>>>> of the same size (stddev < 1%) results in the following runtimes >>>>>>>> for fork() (shorter is better): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Folio Size | v6.8-rc1 |      New | Change >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>>          4KiB | 0.014328 | 0.014035 |   - 2% >>>>>>>>         16KiB | 0.014263 | 0.01196  |   -16% >>>>>>>>         32KiB | 0.014334 | 0.01094  |   -24% >>>>>>>>         64KiB | 0.014046 | 0.010444 |   -26% >>>>>>>>        128KiB | 0.014011 | 0.010063 |   -28% >>>>>>>>        256KiB | 0.013993 | 0.009938 |   -29% >>>>>>>>        512KiB | 0.013983 | 0.00985  |   -30% >>>>>>>>       1024KiB | 0.013986 | 0.00982  |   -30% >>>>>>>>       2048KiB | 0.014305 | 0.010076 |   -30% >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just a heads up that I'm seeing some strange results on Apple M2. Fork for >>>>>>> order-0 is seemingly costing ~17% more. I'm using GCC 13.2 and was pretty >>>>>>> sure I >>>>>>> didn't see this problem with version 1; although that was on a different >>>>>>> baseline and I've thrown the numbers away so will rerun and try to debug >>>>>>> this. >>> >>> Numbers for v1 of the series, both on top of 6.8-rc1 and rebased to the same >>> mm-unstable base as v3 of the series (first 2 rows are from what I just posted >>> for context): >>> >>> | kernel             |   mean_rel |   std_rel | >>> |:-------------------|-----------:|----------:| >>> | mm-unstabe (base)  |       0.0% |      1.1% | >>> | mm-unstable + v3   |      16.7% |      0.8% | >>> | mm-unstable + v1   |      -2.5% |      1.7% | >>> | v6.8-rc1 + v1      |      -6.6% |      1.1% | >>> >>> So all looks good with v1. And seems to suggest mm-unstable has regressed by ~4% >>> vs v6.8-rc1. Is this really a useful benchmark? Does the raw performance of >>> fork() syscall really matter? Evidence suggests its moving all over the place - >>> breath on the code and it changes - not a great place to be when using the test >>> for gating purposes! >>> >>> Still with the old tests - I'll move to the new ones now. >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So far, on my x86 tests (Intel, AMD EPYC), I was not able to observe this. >>>>>> fork() for order-0 was consistently effectively unchanged. Do you observe >>>>>> that >>>>>> on other ARM systems as well? >>>>> >>>>> Nope; running the exact same kernel binary and user space on Altra, I see >>>>> sensible numbers; >>>>> >>>>> fork order-0: -1.3% >>>>> fork order-9: -7.6% >>>>> dontneed order-0: -0.5% >>>>> dontneed order-9: 0.1% >>>>> munmap order-0: 0.0% >>>>> munmap order-9: -67.9% >>>>> >>>>> So I guess some pipelining issue that causes the M2 to stall more? >>>> >>>> With one effective added folio_test_large(), it could only be a code layout >>>> problem? Or the compiler does something stupid, but you say that you run the >>>> exact same kernel binary, so that doesn't make sense. >>> >>> Yup, same binary. We know this code is very sensitive - 1 cycle makes a big >>> difference. So could easily be code layout, branch prediction, etc... >>> >>>> >>>> I'm also surprised about the dontneed vs. munmap numbers. >>> >>> You mean the ones for Altra that I posted? (I didn't post any for M2). The altra >>> numbers look ok to me; dontneed has no change, and munmap has no change for >>> order-0 and is massively improved for order-9. >>> >>>   Doesn't make any sense >>>> (again, there was this VMA merging problem but it would still allow for >>>> batching >>>> within a single VMA that spans exactly one large folio). >>>> >>>> What are you using as baseline? Really just mm-unstable vs. >>>> mm-unstable+patches? >>> >>> yes. except for "v6.8-rc1 + v1" above. >>> >>>> >>>> Let's see if the new test changes the numbers you measure. >> >> Nope: looks the same. I've taken my test harness out of the picture and done >> everything manually from the ground up, with the old tests and the new. Headline >> is that I see similar numbers from both. > > I took me a while to get really reproducible numbers on Intel. Most importantly: > * Set a fixed CPU frequency, disabling any boost and avoiding any >   thermal throttling. > * Pin the test to CPUs and set a nice level. I'm already pinning the test to cpu 0. But for M2, at least, I'm running in a VM on top of macos, and I don't have a mechanism to pin the QEMU threads to the physical CPUs. Anyway, I don't think these are problems because for a given kernel build I can accurately repro numbers. > > Another thing is, to avoid systems where you can have NUMA effects within a > single socket. Otherwise, memory access latency is just random and depends on > what the buddy enjoys giving you. Yep; same. M2 is 1 NUMA node. On Altra, I'm disabling the second NUMA node to remove those effects. > > But you seem to get the same +17 even after reboots, so that indicates that the > CPU is not happy about the code for some reason. And the weird thing is, that > nothing significantly changed for order-0 folios between v1 and v3 that could > explain any of this. > > I'm not worried about 5% or so, nobody cares. But it would be good to have at > least an explanation why only that system shows +17%. Yep understood. > >> >> Some details: >>   - I'm running for 10 seconds then averaging the output > > Same here. > >>   - test is bimodal; first run (of 10 seconds) after boot is a bit faster on >>     average (up to 10%) than the rest; I could guess this is due to the memory >>     being allocated more contiguously the first few times through, so struct >>     pages have better locality, but that's a guess. > > I think it also has to do with the PCP lists, and the high-pcp auto tuning (I > played with disabling that). Running on a freshly booted system gave me > reproducible results. > > But yes: I was observing something similar on AMD EPYC, where you get > consecutive pages from the buddy, but once you allocate from the PCP it might no > longer be consecutive. > >>   - test is 5-10% slower when output is printed to terminal vs when redirected to >>     file. I've always effectively been redirecting. Not sure if this overhead >>     could start to dominate the regression and that's why you don't see it? > > That's weird, because we don't print while measuring? Anyhow, 5/10% variance on > some system is not the end of the world. I imagine its cache effects? More work to do to print the output could be evicting some code that's in the benchmark path? > >> >> I'm inclined to run this test for the last N kernel releases and if the number >> moves around significantly, conclude that these tests don't really matter. >> Otherwise its an exercise in randomly refactoring code until it works well, but >> that's just overfitting to the compiler and hw. What do you think? > > Personally, I wouldn't lose sleep if you see weird, unexplainable behavior on > some system (not even architecture!). Trying to optimize for that would indeed > be random refactorings. > > But I would not be so fast to say that "these tests don't really matter" and > then go wild and degrade them as much as you want. There are use cases that care > about fork performance especially with order-0 pages -- such as Redis. Indeed. But also remember that my fork baseline time is ~2.5ms, and I think you said yours was 14ms :) I'll continue to mess around with it until the end of the day. But I'm not making any headway, then I'll change tack; I'll just measure the performance of my contpte changes using your fork/zap stuff as the baseline and post based on that.