Re: [PATCH -V2] mm: pcp: scale batch to reduce number of high order pcp flushes on deallocation

[Nikhil Dhama]

On 3/25/2025 1:30 PM, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 3/19/2025 1:44 PM, Nikhil Dhama wrote:
> [...]
> > > And, do you run network related workloads on one machine?  If so, 
> > > please
> > > try to run them on two machines instead, with clients and servers 
> > > run on
> > > different machines.  At least, please use different sockets for clients
> > > and servers.  Because larger pcp->free_count will make it easier to
> > > trigger free_high heuristics.  If that is the case, please try to
> > > optimize free_high heuristics directly too.
> >
> > I agree with Ying Huang, the above change is not the best possible 
> > fix for
> > the issue. On futher analysis I figured that root cause of the issue is
> > the frequent pcp high order flushes. During a 20sec iperf3 run
> > I observed on avg 5 pcp high order flushes in kernel v6.6, whereas, in
> > v6.7, I observed about 170 pcp high order flushes.
> > Tracing pcp->free_count, I figured with the patch v1 (patch I suggested
> > earlier) free_count is going into negatives which reduces the number of
> > times free_high heuristics is triggered hence reducing the high order
> > flushes.
> >
> > As Ying Huang Suggested, it helps the performance on increasing the 
> > batch size
> > for free_high heuristics. I tried different scaling factors to find best
> > suitable batch value for free_high heuristics,
> >
> >
> >             score    # free_high
> > -----------        -----    -----------
> > v6.6 (base)        100         4
> > v6.12 (batch*1)         69          170
> > batch*2             69          150
> > batch*4             74          101
> > batch*5            100           53
> > batch*6            100           36
> > batch*8            100        3
> >    scaling batch for free_high heuristics with a factor of 5 restores 
> > the
> > performance.
>
> Hello Nikhil,
>
> Thanks for looking further on this. But from design standpoint,
> how a batch-size of 5 is helping here is not clear (Andrew's original
> question).
>
> Any case can you post the patch-set in a new email so that the below
> patch is not lost in discussion thread?

Hi Raghavendra,

Thanks, I have posted the patch-set in a new email
link: 
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250325171915.14384-1-nikhil.dhama@xxxxxxx/ 

with a better explanation on  how scaling batch is helping here.

Thanks,
Nikhil