On Wed, Sep 25, 2019 at 10:03:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote:
>
>
> 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($target)/{@[args[2]] = count();}' -c "cpuset -n prefer:0 ls"
> >>> ...
> >>> 0 143
> >>
> >> I'll think about this, although it would give no
> >> information which CPUs are executing the threads
> >> that are allocating or accessing the vectors for
> >> the integration kernel. So, for example, if the
> >> threads migrate to or start out on cpus they
> >> should not be on, this would not report such.
> >>
> >> For such "which CPUs" questions one stab would
> >> be simply to watch with top while the benchmark
> >> is running and see which CPUs end up being busy
> >> vs. which do not. I think I'll try this.
> >
> > Using top did not show evidence of the wrong
> > CPUs being actively in use.
> >
> > My variation of top is unusual in that it also
> > tracks some maximum observed figures and reports
> > them, here being:
> >
> > 8804M MaxObsActive, 4228M MaxObsWired, 13G MaxObs(Act+Wir)
> >
> > (no swap use was reported). This gives a system
> > level view of about how much RAM was put to use
> > during the monitoring of the 2 benchmark runs
> > (-l0-15 and -l16-31). No where near enough used
> > to require both memory domains to be in use.
> >
> > Thus, it would appear to be just where the
> > allocations are made for -n prefer:1 that
> > matters, at least when a (temporary) thread
> > does the allocations.
> >
> >>> This approach might not work for various reasons depending on how
> >>> exactly your benchmark program works.
> >
> > I've not tried dtrace yet.
>
> Well, for an example -l0-15 -n prefer:1 run
> for just the 8 threads benchmark case . . .
>
> dtrace: pid 10997 has exited
>
> 0 712
> 1 6737529
>
> Something is leading to domain 0
> allocations, despite -n prefer:1 .
You can get a sense of where these allocations are occuring by changing
the probe to capture kernel stacks for domain 0 page allocations:
fbt::vm_page_alloc_domain_after:entry /progenyof($target) && args[2] ==
0/{@[stack()] = count();}
One possibility is that these are kernel memory allocations occurring in
the context of the benchmark threads. Such allocations may not respect
the configured policy since they are not private to the allocating
thread. For instance, upon opening a file, the kernel may allocate a
vnode structure for that file. That vnode may be accessed by threads
from many processes over its lifetime, and may be recycled many times
before its memory is released back to the allocator.
Given the low number of domain 0 allocations I am skeptical that they
are responsible for the variablility in your results.
> 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.)
_______________________________________________
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"
