lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v4 00/13] ktask: multithread CPU-intensive kernel work
On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 09:48:56PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 5 Nov 2018, at 21:20, Daniel Jordan wrote:
>
> > Hi Zi,
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2018 at 01:49:14PM -0500, Zi Yan wrote:
> >> On 5 Nov 2018, at 11:55, Daniel Jordan wrote:
> >>
> >> Do you think if it makes sense to use ktask for huge page migration (the data
> >> copy part)?
> >
> > It certainly could.
> >
> >> I did some experiments back in 2016[1], which showed that migrating one 2MB page
> >> with 8 threads could achieve 2.8x throughput of the existing single-threaded method.
> >> The problem with my parallel page migration patchset at that time was that it
> >> has no CPU-utilization awareness, which is solved by your patches now.
> >
> > Did you run with fewer than 8 threads? I'd want a bigger speedup than 2.8x for
> > 8, and a smaller thread count might improve thread utilization.
>
> Yes. When migrating one 2MB THP with migrate_pages() system call on a two-socket server
> with 2 E5-2650 v3 CPUs (10 cores per socket) across two sockets, here are the page migration
> throughput numbers:
>
> throughput factor
> 1 thread 2.15 GB/s 1x
> 2 threads 3.05 GB/s 1.42x
> 4 threads 4.50 GB/s 2.09x
> 8 threads 5.98 GB/s 2.78x

Thanks. Looks like in your patches you start a worker for every piece of the
huge page copy and have the main thread wait. I'm curious what the workqueue
overhead is like on your machine. On a newer Xeon it's ~50usec from queueing a
work to starting to execute it and another ~20usec to flush a work
(barrier_func), which could happen after the work is already done. A pretty
significant piece of the copy time for part of a THP.

bash 60728 [087] 155865.157116: probe:ktask_run: (ffffffffb7ee7a80)
bash 60728 [087] 155865.157119: workqueue:workqueue_queue_work: work struct=0xffff95fb73276000
bash 60728 [087] 155865.157119: workqueue:workqueue_activate_work: work struct 0xffff95fb73276000
kworker/u194:3- 86730 [095] 155865.157168: workqueue:workqueue_execute_start: work struct 0xffff95fb73276000: function ktask_thread
kworker/u194:3- 86730 [095] 155865.157170: workqueue:workqueue_execute_end: work struct 0xffff95fb73276000
kworker/u194:3- 86730 [095] 155865.157171: workqueue:workqueue_execute_start: work struct 0xffffa676995bfb90: function wq_barrier_func
kworker/u194:3- 86730 [095] 155865.157190: workqueue:workqueue_execute_end: work struct 0xffffa676995bfb90
bash 60728 [087] 155865.157207: probe:ktask_run_ret__return: (ffffffffb7ee7a80 <- ffffffffb7ee7b7b)

> >
> > It would be nice to multithread at a higher granularity than 2M, too: a range
> > of THPs might also perform better than a single page.
>
> Sure. But the kernel currently does not copy multiple pages altogether even if a range
> of THPs is migrated. Page copy function is interleaved with page table operations
> for every single page.
>
> I also did some study and modified the kernel to improve this, which I called
> concurrent page migration in https://lwn.net/Articles/714991/. It further
> improves page migration throughput.

Ok, over 4x with 8 threads for 16 THPs. Is 16 a typical number for migration,
or does it get larger? What workloads do you have in mind with this change?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-06 22:18    [W:0.066 / U:4.884 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site