If wake_affine() pulls a task to another node for any reason and the node is
no longer preferred then temporarily stop automatic NUMA balancing pulling
the task back. Otherwise, tasks with a strong waker/wakee relationship
may constantly fight automatic NUMA balancing over where a task should
be placed.
Once again netperf is interesting here. The performance barely changes
but automatic NUMA balancing is interesting:
Hmean send-64 354.67 ( 0.00%) 352.15 ( -0.71%)
Hmean send-128 702.91 ( 0.00%) 693.84 ( -1.29%)
Hmean send-256 1350.07 ( 0.00%) 1344.19 ( -0.44%)
Hmean send-1024 5124.38 ( 0.00%) 4941.24 ( -3.57%)
Hmean send-2048 9687.44 ( 0.00%) 9624.45 ( -0.65%)
Hmean send-3312 14577.64 ( 0.00%) 14514.35 ( -0.43%)
Hmean send-4096 16393.62 ( 0.00%) 16488.30 ( 0.58%)
Hmean send-8192 26877.26 ( 0.00%) 26431.63 ( -1.66%)
Hmean send-16384 38683.43 ( 0.00%) 38264.91 ( -1.08%)
Hmean recv-64 354.67 ( 0.00%) 352.15 ( -0.71%)
Hmean recv-128 702.91 ( 0.00%) 693.84 ( -1.29%)
Hmean recv-256 1350.07 ( 0.00%) 1344.19 ( -0.44%)
Hmean recv-1024 5124.38 ( 0.00%) 4941.24 ( -3.57%)
Hmean recv-2048 9687.43 ( 0.00%) 9624.45 ( -0.65%)
Hmean recv-3312 14577.59 ( 0.00%) 14514.35 ( -0.43%)
Hmean recv-4096 16393.55 ( 0.00%) 16488.20 ( 0.58%)
Hmean recv-8192 26876.96 ( 0.00%) 26431.29 ( -1.66%)
Hmean recv-16384 38682.41 ( 0.00%) 38263.94 ( -1.08%)
NUMA alloc hit 1465986 1423090
NUMA alloc miss 0 0
NUMA interleave hit 0 0
NUMA alloc local 1465897 1423003
NUMA base PTE updates 1473 1420
NUMA huge PMD updates 0 0
NUMA page range updates 1473 1420
NUMA hint faults 1383 1312
NUMA hint local faults 451 124
NUMA hint local percent 32 9
There is a slight degrading in performance but there are slightly fewer
NUMA faults. There is a large drop in the percentage of local faults but
the bulk of migrations for netperf are in small shared libraries so it's
reflecting the fact that automatic NUMA balancing has backed off. This is
a case where despite wake_affine() and automatic NUMA balancing fighting
for placement that there is a marginal benefit to rescheduling to local
data quickly. However, it should be noted that wake_affine() and automatic
NUMA balancing fighting each other constantly is undesirable.
However, the benefit in other cases is large. This is the result for NAS
with the D class sizing on a 4-socket machine:
nas-mpi
4.15.0 4.15.0
sdnuma-v1r23 delayretry-v1r23
Time cg.D 557.00 ( 0.00%) 431.82 ( 22.47%)
Time ep.D 77.83 ( 0.00%) 79.01 ( -1.52%)
Time is.D 26.46 ( 0.00%) 26.64 ( -0.68%)
Time lu.D 727.14 ( 0.00%) 597.94 ( 17.77%)
Time mg.D 191.35 ( 0.00%) 146.85 ( 23.26%)
4.15.0 4.15.0
sdnuma-v1r23delayretry-v1r23
User 75665.20 70413.30
System 20321.59 8861.67
Elapsed 766.13 634.92
Minor Faults 16528502 7127941
Major Faults 4553 5068
NUMA alloc local 6963197 6749135
NUMA base PTE updates 366409093 107491434
NUMA huge PMD updates 687556 198880
NUMA page range updates 718437765 209317994
NUMA hint faults 13643410 4601187
NUMA hint local faults 9212593 3063996
NUMA hint local percent 67 66
Note the massive reduction in system CPU usage even though the percentage
of local faults is barely affected. There is a massive reduction in the
number of PTE updates showing that automatic NUMA balancing has backed off.
A critical observation is also that there is a massive reduction in minor
faults which is due to far fewer NUMA hinting faults being trapped.
There were questions on NAS OMP and how it behaved related to threads
being bound to CPUs. First, there are more gains than losses with this
patch applied and a reduction in system CPU usage:
nas-omp
4.16.0-rc1 4.16.0-rc1
sdnuma-v2r1 delayretry-v2r1
Time bt.D 436.71 ( 0.00%) 430.05 ( 1.53%)
Time cg.D 201.02 ( 0.00%) 180.87 ( 10.02%)
Time ep.D 32.84 ( 0.00%) 32.68 ( 0.49%)
Time is.D 9.63 ( 0.00%) 9.64 ( -0.10%)
Time lu.D 331.20 ( 0.00%) 304.80 ( 7.97%)
Time mg.D 54.87 ( 0.00%) 52.72 ( 3.92%)
Time sp.D 1108.78 ( 0.00%) 917.10 ( 17.29%)
Time ua.D 378.81 ( 0.00%) 398.83 ( -5.28%)
4.16.0-rc1 4.16.0-rc1
sdnuma-v2r1delayretry-v2r1
User 305633.08 296751.91
System 451.75 357.80
Elapsed 2595.73 2368.13
However, it does not close the gap between binding and being unbound. There
is negligible difference between the performance of the baseline and a
patched kernel when threads are bound so it is not presented here:
4.16.0-rc1 4.16.0-rc1
delayretry-bind delayretry-unbound
Time bt.D 385.02 ( 0.00%) 430.05 ( -11.70%)
Time cg.D 144.02 ( 0.00%) 180.87 ( -25.59%)
Time ep.D 32.85 ( 0.00%) 32.68 ( 0.52%)
Time is.D 10.52 ( 0.00%) 9.64 ( 8.37%)
Time lu.D 285.31 ( 0.00%) 304.80 ( -6.83%)
Time mg.D 43.21 ( 0.00%) 52.72 ( -22.01%)
Time sp.D 820.24 ( 0.00%) 917.10 ( -11.81%)
Time ua.D 337.09 ( 0.00%) 398.83 ( -18.32%)
4.16.0-rc1 4.16.0-rc1
delayretry-binddelayretry-unbound
User 277731.25 296751.91
System 261.29 357.80
Elapsed 2100.55 2368.13
Unfortunately, while performance is improved by the patch, there is still
quite a long way to go before it's equivalent to hard binding.
Other workloads like hackbench, tbench, dbench and schbench are barely
affected. dbench shows a mix of gains and losses depending on the machine
although in general, the results are more stable.
Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Giovanni Gherdovich <ggherdovich@suse.cz>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180213133730.24064-7-mgorman@techsingularity.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7347fc87df