lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/8] THP: Use real address for NUMA policy
From
Alex,

Although the explanation seems plausible, have you verified this is
actually possible? You could make a simple pthread test case which
allocates a getpagesize() * <number-of-threads> area, prints its
address and then each thread migrate and reference their page. Have
the task then sleep(<long-time>) before exit. Look at the physical
address space with dlook for those virtual addresses in both the THP
and non-THP cases.

Thanks,
Robin

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Alex Thorlton <athorlton@sgi.com> wrote:
>> Here's more up-to-date version: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/8/20/337
>
> These don't seem to give us a noticeable performance change either:
>
> With THP:
>
> real 22m34.279s
> user 10797m35.984s
> sys 39m18.188s
>
> Without THP:
>
> real 4m48.957s
> user 2118m23.208s
> sys 113m12.740s
>
> Looks like we got a few minutes faster on the with THP case, but it's
> still significantly slower, and that could just be a fluke result; we're
> still floating at about a 5x performance degradation.
>
> I talked with one of our performance/benchmarking experts last week and
> he's done a bit more research into the actual problem here, so I've got
> a bit more information:
>
> The real performance hit, based on our testing, seems to be coming from
> the increased latency that comes into play on large NUMA systems when a
> process has to go off-node to read from/write to memory.
>
> To give an extreme example, say we have a 16 node system with 8 cores
> per node. If we have a job that shares a 2MB data structure between 128
> threads, with THP on, the first thread to touch the structure will
> allocate all 2MB of space for that structure in a 2MB page, local to its
> socket. This means that all the memory accessses for the other 120
> threads will be remote acceses. With THP off, each thread could locally
> allocate a number of 4K pages sufficient to hold the chunk of the
> structure on which it needs to work, significantly reducing the number
> of remote accesses that each thread will need to perform.
>
> So, with that in mind, do we agree that a per-process tunable (or
> something similar) to control THP seems like a reasonable method to
> handle this issue?
>
> Just want to confirm that everyone likes this approach before moving
> forward with another revision of the patch. I'm currently in favor of
> moving this to a per-mm tunable, since that seems to make more sense
> when it comes to threaded jobs. Also, a decent chunk of the code I've
> already written can be reused with this approach, and prctl will still
> be an appropriate place from which to control the behavior. Andrew
> Morton suggested possibly controlling this through the ELF header, but
> I'm going to lean towards the per-mm route unless anyone has a major
> objection to it.
>
> - Alex


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-27 19:21    [W:0.177 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site