On 09/09/2014 07:50 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote: > The mctz->lock is only taken when there is, or has been, soft limit > excess. However, the soft limit defaults to infinity, so unless you > set it explicitly on the root level, I can't see how this could be > mctz->lock contention. > > It's more plausible that this is the res_counter lock for testing soft > limit excess - for me, both these locks get inlined into check_events, > could you please double check you got the right lock?
I got the wrong lock. Here's how it looks after mainline, plus your
free_pages_and_swap_cache() patch:
Samples: 2M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 51647128377
+ 60.60% 1.33% page_fault2_processes [.] testcase
▒
+ 59.14% 0.41% [kernel] [k] page_fault
◆
+ 58.72% 0.01% [kernel] [k] do_page_fault
▒
+ 58.70% 0.08% [kernel] [k] __do_page_fault
▒
+ 58.50% 0.29% [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault
▒
+ 40.14% 0.28% [kernel] [k] do_cow_fault
▒
- 34.56% 34.56% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
▒
- _raw_spin_lock
▒
- 78.11% __res_counter_charge
▒
res_counter_charge
▒
try_charge
▒
- mem_cgroup_try_charge
▒
+ 99.99% do_cow_fault
▒
- 10.30% res_counter_uncharge_until
▒
res_counter_uncharge
▒
uncharge_batch
▒
uncharge_list
▒
mem_cgroup_uncharge_list
▒
release_pages
▒
+ 4.75% free_pcppages_bulk
▒
+ 3.65% do_cow_fault
▒
+ 2.24% get_page_from_freelist
▒
> You also said that this cost hasn't been there before, but I do see
> that trace in both v3.16 and v3.17-rc3 with roughly the same impact
> (although my machines show less contention than yours). Could you
> please double check that this is in fact a regression independent of
> 05b843012335 ("mm: memcontrol: use root_mem_cgroup res_counter")?
Here's the same workload on the same machine with only Johannes' revert applied:
- 35.92% 35.92% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
▒
- _raw_spin_lock
▒
- 49.09% get_page_from_freelist
▒
- __alloc_pages_nodemask
▒
+ 99.90% alloc_pages_vma
▒
- 43.67% free_pcppages_bulk
▒
- 100.00% free_hot_cold_page
▒
+ 99.93% free_hot_cold_page_list
▒
- 7.08% do_cow_fault
▒
handle_mm_fault
▒
__do_page_fault
▒
do_page_fault
▒
page_fault
▒
testcase
▒
So I think it's probably part of the same regression.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
