From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression since 2.6.25-rc
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 15:50:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1205740204.3215.520.camel@ymzhang> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803141400170.28115@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 14:06 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>
> > On my 8-core stoakley, there is no such regression. Below data is after
> > testing.
>
> I was looking for the details on two slab caches. The comparison of the
> details statistics is likely very interesting because we will be able to
> see how the doubling of processor counts affects the internal behavior of
> slub.
I collected more data on 16-p tigerton to try to find the possible relationship
between slub_min_objects and processor number. Kernel is 2.6.25-rc5.
Command\slub_min_objects | slub_min_objects=8 | 16 | 32 | 64
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
./hackbench 100 process 2000 | 250second | 23 | 18.6 | 17.5
./hackbench 200 process 2000 | 532 | 44 | 35.6 | 33.5
The first command line will start 4000 processes and the second will start 8000 processes.
As the problemtic slab is kmalloc-512, slub_min_objects=8 is just the default configuration.
Oprofile data shows the ratio of __slab_alloc+__slab_free+add_partial has no difference
between the 2 commandline with the same kernel boot parameters.
slub_min_objects | 8 | 16 | 32 | 64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
slab(__slab_alloc+__slab_free+add_partial) cpu utilization | 88.00% | 44.00% | 13.00% | 12%
When slub_min_objects=32, we could get a reasonable value. Beyond 32, the improvement
is very small. 32 is just possible_cpu_number*2 on my tigerton.
It's hard to say hackbench simulates real applications closely. But it discloses a possible
performance bottlebeck. Last year, we once captured the kmalloc-2048 issue by tbench. So the
default slub_min_objects need to be revised. In the other hand, slab is allocated by alloc_page
when its size is equal to or more than a half page, so enlarging slub_min_objects won't create
too many slab page buffers.
As for NUMA, perhaps we could define slub_min_objects to 2*max_cpu_number_per_node.
-yanmin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-17 8:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-13 7:46 Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-13 8:48 ` Andrew Morton
2008-03-13 9:28 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-13 9:52 ` Andrew Morton
2008-03-14 0:16 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 3:04 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 3:30 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 5:28 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 6:39 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 7:29 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 21:05 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 6:34 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 7:23 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 21:06 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-17 7:50 ` Zhang, Yanmin [this message]
2008-03-17 17:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-18 3:28 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-18 4:07 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 6:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-14 7:14 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 21:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-15 0:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-17 3:35 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-17 17:27 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-03-17 3:05 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-13 15:14 ` Greg KH
2008-03-13 16:19 ` Randy Dunlap
2008-03-13 17:12 ` Greg KH
2008-03-14 0:50 ` Zhang, Yanmin
2008-03-14 5:01 ` Greg KH
2008-03-14 5:32 ` Zhang, Yanmin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1205740204.3215.520.camel@ymzhang \
--to=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=gregkh@suse.de \
--cc=kay.sievers@vrfy.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome