Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-05-02 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 27/04/2018 11:45 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:10:33PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: Hi, I ran my tests with your patches. Initial BW numbers are significantly higher than I documented back then in this mail-thread.

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-04-27 Thread Aaron Lu
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:10:33PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I ran my tests with your patches. > > Initial BW numbers are significantly higher than I documented back then in > > this mail-thread. > > For example, in

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-04-23 Thread Aaron Lu
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:54:57AM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > Hi, > > I ran my tests with your patches. > Initial BW numbers are significantly higher than I documented back then in > this mail-thread. > For example, in driver #2 (see original mail thread), with 6 rings, I now > get 92Gbps

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-04-23 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 22/04/2018 7:43 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 21/04/2018 11:15 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: Sorry to bring up an old thread... I want to thank you very much for bringing this up! On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: On

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-04-22 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 21/04/2018 11:15 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: Sorry to bring up an old thread... I want to thank you very much for bringing this up! On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Thu,

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2018-04-21 Thread Aaron Lu
Sorry to bring up an old thread... On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > > > On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > Insights: Major

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-08 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 09:35:47 + Mel Gorman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:42:04PM +0900, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > After leaving this task for a while doing other tasks, I got back to it > > > > now > > > > and see that the good

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-08 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 08/11/2017 6:35 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:42:04PM +0900, Tariq Toukan wrote: Hi all, After leaving this task for a while doing other tasks, I got back to it now and see that the good behavior I observed earlier was not stable. Recall: I work with a modified driver

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-08 Thread Mel Gorman
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 02:42:04PM +0900, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > After leaving this task for a while doing other tasks, I got back to it > > > now > > > and see that the good behavior I observed earlier was not stable. > > > > > > Recall: I work with a modified driver

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-07 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 03/11/2017 10:40 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: Insights: Major degradation between

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-03 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Nov 02, 2017 at 07:21:09PM +0200, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > > > On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > Insights: Major degradation between #1 and #2, not

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-11-02 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 18/09/2017 12:16 PM, Tariq Toukan wrote: On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: Insights: Major degradation between #1 and #2, not getting any close to linerate! Degradation is fixed between #2 and #3. This is because page

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-19 Thread Aaron Lu
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 06:33:20PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > On 18/09/2017 10:44 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:34:47PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > > > > > It's nice to have the option to

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-18 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 18/09/2017 10:44 AM, Aaron Lu wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:34:47PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter. But maybe we should also think of changing the default

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-18 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 15/09/2017 1:23 PM, Mel Gorman wrote: On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: Insights: Major degradation between #1 and #2, not getting any close to linerate! Degradation is fixed between #2 and #3. This is because page allocator cannot stand the higher allocation

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-18 Thread Aaron Lu
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 03:34:47PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > > > It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter. > > But maybe we should also think of changing the default fraction guaranteed > > to the PCP, so

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-18 Thread Aaron Lu
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 07:16:15PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > > It's nice to have the option to dynamically play with the parameter. > But maybe we should also think of changing the default fraction guaranteed > to the PCP, so that unaware admins of networking servers would also benefit. I

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-17 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 15/09/2017 10:28 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:49:31 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote: Hi all, As part of the efforts to support increasing next-generation NIC speeds, I am investigating SW bottlenecks in network stack receive flow. Here I share

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-17 Thread Tariq Toukan
On 14/09/2017 11:19 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: Tariq Toukan writes: Congestion in this case is very clear. When monitored in perf top: 85.58% [kernel] [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath Please look at the callers. Spinlock profiles without callers are usually useless because

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-15 Thread Mel Gorman
On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:49:31PM +0300, Tariq Toukan wrote: > Insights: > Major degradation between #1 and #2, not getting any close to linerate! > Degradation is fixed between #2 and #3. > This is because page allocator cannot stand the higher allocation rate. > In #2, we also see that the

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-15 Thread Jesper Dangaard Brouer
On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 19:49:31 +0300 Tariq Toukan wrote: > Hi all, > > As part of the efforts to support increasing next-generation NIC speeds, > I am investigating SW bottlenecks in network stack receive flow. > > Here I share some numbers I got for a simple experiment, in

Re: Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-14 Thread Andi Kleen
Tariq Toukan writes: > > Congestion in this case is very clear. > When monitored in perf top: > 85.58% [kernel] [k] queued_spin_lock_slowpath Please look at the callers. Spinlock profiles without callers are usually useless because it's just blaming the messenger. Most

Page allocator bottleneck

2017-09-14 Thread Tariq Toukan
Hi all, As part of the efforts to support increasing next-generation NIC speeds, I am investigating SW bottlenecks in network stack receive flow. Here I share some numbers I got for a simple experiment, in which I simulate the page allocation rate needed in 200Gpbs NICs. I ran the test below