Re: Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stablebackport of NUMA balancing patches)

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:48:58PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> Adding LKML to the list as this -stable snifftest has identified an
> upstream regression.
> 
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:43:40AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 08:30:12PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:17:15AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > > > > A number of NUMA balancing patches were tagged for -stable but I got a
> > > > > > number of rejected mails from either Greg or his robot minion.  The list
> > > > > > of relevant patches is
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: serialise parallel get_user_page against THP"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: call MMU notifiers on THP migration"
> > > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: clear pmd_numa before invalidating"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PMD during PTE update scan"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PTE for pte_numa update"
> > > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: ensure anon_vma is locked to prevent parallel THP splits"
> > > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: avoid unnecessary work on the failure path"
> > > > > > MERGED: Patch "sched: numa: skip inaccessible VMAs"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: clear numa hinting information on mprotect"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: avoid unnecessary disruption of NUMA hinting during"
> > > > > > Patch "mm: fix TLB flush race between migration, and change_protection_range"
> > > > > > Patch "mm: numa: guarantee that tlb_flush_pending updates are visible before page table updates"
> > > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: defer TLB flush for THP migration as long as"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Fixing the rejects one at a time may cause other conflicts due to ordering
> > > > > > issues. Instead, this patch series against 3.12.6 is the full list of
> > > > > > backported patches in the expected order. Greg, unfortunately this means
> > > > > > you may have to drop some patches already in your stable tree and reapply
> > > > > > but on the plus side they should be then in the correct order for bisection
> > > > > > purposes and you'll know I've tested this combination of patches.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Many thanks for these, I'll go queue them up in a bit and drop the
> > > > > others to ensure I got all of this correct.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, I've now queued all of these up, in this order, so we should be
> > > > good.
> > > > 
> > > > I'll do a -rc2 in a bit as it needs some testing.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks a million. I should be cc'd on some of those so I'll pick up the
> > > final result and run it through the same tests just to be sure.
> > > 
> > 
> > Ok, tests completed and look more or less as expected. This is not to
> > say the performance results are *good* as such.  Workloads that normally
> > demonstrate automatic numa balancing suffered because of other patches that
> > were merged (primarily fair zone allocation policy) that had interesting
> > side-effects. However, it now does not crash under heavy stress and I
> > prefer working a little slowly than crashing fast. NAS at least looks
> > better.
> > 
> > Other workloads like kernel builds, page fault microbench looked good as
> > expected from the fair zone allocation policy fixes.
> > 
> > Big downside is that ebizzy performance is *destroyed* in that RC2 patch
> > somewhere
> > 
> > ebizzy
> >                          3.12.6                3.12.6            3.12.7-rc2
> >                         vanilla         backport-v1r2             stablerc2
> > Mean   1      3278.67 (  0.00%)     3180.67 ( -2.99%)     3212.00 ( -2.03%)
> > Mean   2      2322.67 (  0.00%)     2294.67 ( -1.21%)     1839.00 (-20.82%)
> > Mean   3      2257.00 (  0.00%)     2218.67 ( -1.70%)     1664.00 (-26.27%)
> > Mean   4      2268.00 (  0.00%)     2224.67 ( -1.91%)     1629.67 (-28.15%)
> > Mean   5      2247.67 (  0.00%)     2255.67 (  0.36%)     1582.33 (-29.60%)
> > Mean   6      2263.33 (  0.00%)     2251.33 ( -0.53%)     1547.67 (-31.62%)
> > Mean   7      2273.67 (  0.00%)     2222.67 ( -2.24%)     1545.67 (-32.02%)
> > Mean   8      2254.67 (  0.00%)     2232.33 ( -0.99%)     1535.33 (-31.90%)
> > Mean   12     2237.67 (  0.00%)     2266.33 (  1.28%)     1543.33 (-31.03%)
> > Mean   16     2201.33 (  0.00%)     2252.67 (  2.33%)     1540.33 (-30.03%)
> > Mean   20     2205.67 (  0.00%)     2229.33 (  1.07%)     1537.33 (-30.30%)
> > Mean   24     2162.33 (  0.00%)     2168.67 (  0.29%)     1535.33 (-29.00%)
> > Mean   28     2139.33 (  0.00%)     2107.67 ( -1.48%)     1535.00 (-28.25%)
> > Mean   32     2084.67 (  0.00%)     2089.00 (  0.21%)     1537.33 (-26.26%)
> > Mean   36     2002.00 (  0.00%)     2020.00 (  0.90%)     1530.33 (-23.56%)
> > Mean   40     1972.67 (  0.00%)     1978.67 (  0.30%)     1530.33 (-22.42%)
> > Mean   44     1951.00 (  0.00%)     1953.67 (  0.14%)     1531.00 (-21.53%)
> > Mean   48     1931.67 (  0.00%)     1930.67 ( -0.05%)     1526.67 (-20.97%)
> > 
> > Figures are records/sec, more is better for increasing numbers of threads
> > up to 48 which is the number of logical CPUs in the machine. Three kernels
> > tested
> > 
> > 3.12.6        is self-explanatory
> > backport-v1r2 is the backported series I sent you
> > stablerc2     is the rc2 patch I pulled from kernel.org
> > 
> > I'm not that familiar with the stable workflow but stable-queue.git looked
> > like it had the correct quilt tree so bisection is in progress. If I had
> > to bet money on it, I'd bet it's going to be scheduler or power management
> > related mostly because problems in both of those areas have tended to
> > screw ebizzy recently.
> > 
> 
> I was not far off. Bisection identified the following commit
> 
> 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351 is the first bad commit
> commit 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351
> Author: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Wed Dec 18 16:44:57 2013 -0500
> 
>     x86 idle: Repair large-server 50-watt idle-power regression
> 
>     commit 40e2d7f9b5dae048789c64672bf3027fbb663ffa upstream.
> 
>     Linux 3.10 changed the timing of how thread_info->flags is touched:
> 
>         x86: Use generic idle loop
>         (7d1a941731fabf27e5fb6edbebb79fe856edb4e5)
> 
>     This caused Intel NHM-EX and WSM-EX servers to experience a large number
>     of immediate MONITOR/MWAIT break wakeups, which caused cpuidle to demote
>     from deep C-states to shallow C-states, which caused these platforms
>     to experience a significant increase in idle power.
> 
>     Note that this issue was already present before the commit above,
>     however, it wasn't seen often enough to be noticed in power measurements.
> 
>     Here we extend an errata workaround from the Core2 EX "Dunnington"
>     to extend to NHM-EX and WSM-EX, to prevent these immediate
>     returns from MWAIT, reducing idle power on these platforms.
> 
>     While only acpi_idle ran on Dunnington, intel_idle
>     may also run on these two newer systems.
>     As of today, there are no other models that are known
>     to need this tweak.
> 
>     Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAJvTdK=%2BaNN66mYpCGgbHGCHhYQAKx-vB0kJSWjVpsNb_hOAtQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>     Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>
>     Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/baff264285f6e585df757d58b17788feabc68918.1387403066.git.len.brown@xxxxxxxxx
>     Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Len, HPA, the x86 idle regression fix fubars ebizzy as a consequence, I
> don't know why. I know the workload is not that important (and I expected
> ebizzy to be unaffected in this test) but it is probably indicative of
> other performance regressions hiding in there. It was caught via -stable
> testing by accident but I checked and upstream is also affected. This is
> a snippet from the bisection log
> 
> Wed 8 Jan 09:53:59 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.6 mean-4:2317 good
> Wed 8 Jan 10:13:04 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.7-rc2 mean-4:1631 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 10:27:45 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy a202b4808e500f4fd53b6cec150c8fe214c70183 mean-4:1620 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 10:41:36 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c915b8fa860e189cb84898a30f135399baa827fa mean-4:2290 good
> Wed 8 Jan 10:55:14 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c915b8fa860e189cb84898a30f135399baa827fa mean-4:2266 good
> Wed 8 Jan 11:09:04 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c62a6f8a28bf8897ba0903cf332d761c1132e48d mean-4:1624 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 11:22:46 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 346679aad15c3608844f6b433b8d8ba56ad03802 mean-4:2280 good
> Wed 8 Jan 11:36:32 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 36b9512dc19b535d72c1035048a95ec1c765d403 mean-4:1641 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 11:50:22 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 1a82fc9ab8bb6b4a5ee5cd32d570d6ff0b77efb2 mean-4:1627 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 12:04:15 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351 mean-4:1619 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 13:10:03 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.13-rc7 mean-4:1619 bad
> Wed 8 Jan 13:39:19 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.7-rc2-revert mean-4:2276 good
> 
> mean-4 figures are records/sec as recorded by the bisection test. The
> bisection points are based on the -stable quilt tree so the commit ids are
> meaningless but you can see good/bad figures are relatively stable leading
> me to conclude the bisection is valid.
> 
> v3.12.6 was 2317 records/second and considered "good". The 3.12.7-rc2
> stable candidate and 3.13-rc7 are both "bad". Reverting the single patch
> from v3.12.7-rc2 restores performance.
> 
> Greg, this does not affect your -stable release as such because upstream is
> also affected. If you release with the patch merged then the upstream fix
> (whatever that is) will also need to be included in -stable later. If you
> release without the patch then both upstream fixes will be later required
> and some Intel machines will continue to consume excessive amounts of
> power in the meantime.

Thanks, I'll just leave -stable as-is, and pick up the fix from upstream
when it hits there.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/