On 2019-Sep-25, at 20:27, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2019-Sep-25, at 19:26, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On 2019-Sep-25, at 10:02, Mark Johnston <markj at reeBSD.org> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:28:15PM -0700, Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64 >>> wrote: >>>> Note: I have access to only one FreeBSD amd64 context, and >>>> it is also my only access to a NUMA context: 2 memory >>>> domains. A Threadripper 1950X context. Also: I have only >>>> a head FreeBSD context on any architecture, not 12.x or >>>> before. So I have limited compare/contrast material. >>>> >>>> I present the below basically to ask if the NUMA handling >>>> has been validated, or if it is going to be, at least for >>>> contexts that might apply to ThreadRipper 1950X and >>>> analogous contexts. My results suggest they are not (or >>>> libc++'s now times get messed up such that it looks like >>>> NUMA mishandling since this is based on odd benchmark >>>> results that involve mean time for laps, using a median >>>> of such across multiple trials). >>>> >>>> I ran a benchmark on both Fedora 30 and FreeBSD 13 on this >>>> 1950X got got expected results on Fedora but odd ones on >>>> FreeBSD. The benchmark is a variation on the old HINT >>>> benchmark, spanning the old multi-threading variation. I >>>> later tried Fedora because the FreeBSD results looked odd. >>>> The other architectures I tried FreeBSD benchmarking with >>>> did not look odd like this. (powerpc64 on a old PowerMac 2 >>>> socket with 2 cores per socket, aarch64 Cortex-A57 Overdrive >>>> 1000, CortextA53 Pine64+ 2GB, armv7 Cortex-A7 Orange Pi+ 2nd >>>> Ed. For these I used 4 threads, not more.) >>>> >>>> I tend to write in terms of plots made from the data instead >>>> of the raw benchmark data. >>>> >>>> FreeBSD testing based on: >>>> cpuset -l0-15 -n prefer:1 >>>> cpuset -l16-31 -n prefer:1 >>>> >>>> Fedora 30 testing based on: >>>> numactl --preferred 1 --cpunodebind 0 >>>> numactl --preferred 1 --cpunodebind 1 >>>> >>>> While I have more results, I reference primarily DSIZE >>>> and ISIZE being unsigned long long and also both being >>>> unsigned long as examples. Variations in results are not >>>> from the type differences for any LP64 architectures. >>>> (But they give an idea of benchmark variability in the >>>> test context.) >>>> >>>> The Fedora results solidly show the bandwidth limitation >>>> of using one memory controller. They also show the latency >>>> consequences for the remote memory domain case vs. the >>>> local memory domain case. There is not a lot of >>>> variability between the examples of the 2 type-pairs used >>>> for Fedora. >>>> >>>> Not true for FreeBSD on the 1950X: >>>> >>>> A) The latency-constrained part of the graph looks to >>>> normally be using the local memory domain when >>>> -l0-15 is in use for 8 threads. >>>> >>>> B) Both the -l0-15 and the -l16-31 parts of the >>>> graph for 8 threads that should be bandwidth >>>> limited show mostly examples that would have to >>>> involve both memory controllers for the bandwidth >>>> to get the results shown as far as I can tell. >>>> There is also wide variability ranging between the >>>> expected 1 controller result and, say, what a 2 >>>> controller round-robin would be expected produce. >>>> >>>> C) Even the single threaded result shows a higher >>>> result for larger total bytes for the kernel >>>> vectors. Fedora does not. >>>> >>>> I think that (B) is the most solid evidence for >>>> something being odd. >>> >>> The implication seems to be that your benchmark program is using pages >>> from both domains despite a policy which preferentially allocates pages >>> from domain 1, so you would first want to determine if this is actually >>> what's happening. As far as I know we currently don't have a good way >>> of characterizing per-domain memory usage within a process. >>> >>> If your benchmark uses a large fraction of the system's memory, you >>> could use the vm.phys_free sysctl to get a sense of how much memory from >>> each domain is free. >> >> The ThreadRipper 1950X has 96 GiBytes of ECC RAM, so 48 GiBytes per memory >> domain. I've never configured the benchmark such that it even reaches >> 10 GiBytes on this hardware. (It stops for a time constraint first, >> based on the values in use for the "adjustable" items.) >> >> . . . (much omitted material) . . . > >> >>> Another possibility is to use DTrace to trace the >>> requested domain in vm_page_alloc_domain_after(). For example, the >>> following DTrace one-liner counts the number of pages allocated per >>> domain by ls(1): >>> >>> # dtrace -n 'fbt::vm_page_alloc_domain_after:entry >>> /progenyof($target)/{@[args[2]] = count();}' -c "cpuset -n rr ls" >>> ... >>> 0 71 >>> 1 72 >>> # dtrace -n 'fbt::vm_page_alloc_domain_after:entry >>> /progenyof($target)/{@[args[2]] = count();}' -c "cpuset -n prefer:1 ls" >>> ... >>> 1 143 >>> # dtrace -n 'fbt::vm_page_alloc_domain_after:entry >>> /progenyof($target)/{@[args[2]] = count();}' -c "cpuset -n prefer:0 ls" >>> ... >>> 0 143 >> >> I'll think about this, although it would give no >> information which CPUs are executing the threads >> that are allocating or accessing the vectors for >> the integration kernel. So, for example, if the >> threads migrate to or start out on cpus they >> should not be on, this would not report such. >> >> For such "which CPUs" questions one stab would >> be simply to watch with top while the benchmark >> is running and see which CPUs end up being busy >> vs. which do not. I think I'll try this. > > Using top did not show evidence of the wrong > CPUs being actively in use. > > My variation of top is unusual in that it also > tracks some maximum observed figures and reports > them, here being: > > 8804M MaxObsActive, 4228M MaxObsWired, 13G MaxObs(Act+Wir) > > (no swap use was reported). This gives a system > level view of about how much RAM was put to use > during the monitoring of the 2 benchmark runs > (-l0-15 and -l16-31). No where near enough used > to require both memory domains to be in use. > > Thus, it would appear to be just where the > allocations are made for -n prefer:1 that > matters, at least when a (temporary) thread > does the allocations. > >>> This approach might not work for various reasons depending on how >>> exactly your benchmark program works. > > I've not tried dtrace yet. Well, for an example -l0-15 -n prefer:1 run for just the 8 threads benchmark case . . . dtrace: pid 10997 has exited 0 712 1 6737529 Something is leading to domain 0 allocations, despite -n prefer:1 . So I tried -l16-31 -n prefer:1 and it got: dtrace: pid 11037 has exited 0 2 1 8055389 (The larger number of allocations is not a surprise: more work done in about the same overall time based on faster memory access generally.) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar) _______________________________________________ freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-amd64 To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-amd64-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: head -r352341 example context on ThreadRipper 1950X: cpuset -n prefer:1 with -l 0-15 vs. -l 16-31 odd performance?
Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64 Wed, 25 Sep 2019 22:04:01 -0700
- head -r352341 example context on ThreadRipp... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r352341 example context on T... Mark Johnston
- Re: head -r352341 example context ... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r352341 example cont... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r352341 example ... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r352341 exa... Mark Johnston
- Re: head -r352341... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r35... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r35... Mark Johnston
- Re: head -r35... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r35... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64
- Re: head -r35... Mark Millard via freebsd-amd64