| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 00:10:41 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, alex.shi@...el.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Ma, Ling" <ling.ma@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e
Le mardi 06 avril 2010 à 15:55 -0500, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> We cannot reproduce the issue here. Our tests here (dual quad dell) show a
> performance increase in hackbench instead.
>
> Linux 2.6.33.2 #2 SMP Mon Apr 5 11:30:56 CDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> ./hackbench 100 process 200000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 3102.142
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 308.731
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 311.591
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 310.200
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 38.048
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 44.711
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 39.407
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 9.411
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 8.765
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 8.822
>
> Linux 2.6.34-rc3 #1 SMP Tue Apr 6 13:30:34 CDT 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> ./hackbench 100 process 200000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 3003.578
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 300.289
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 301.462
> ./hackbench 100 process 20000
> Running with 100*40 (== 4000) tasks.
> Time: 301.173
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 41.191
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 41.964
> ./hackbench 10 process 20000
> Running with 10*40 (== 400) tasks.
> Time: 41.470
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 8.829
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 9.166
> ./hackbench 1 process 20000
> Running with 1*40 (== 40) tasks.
> Time: 8.681
>
>
Well, your config might be very different... and hackbench results can
vary by 10% on same machine, same kernel.
This is not a reliable bench, because af_unix is not prepared to get
such a lazy workload.
We really should warn people about this.
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 12.922
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 12.696
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 13.060
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 14.108
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 13.165
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 13.310
# hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 12.530
booting with slub_min_order=3 do change hackbench results for example ;)
All writers can compete on spinlock for a target UNIX socket, we spend _lot_ of time spinning.
If we _really_ want to speedup hackbench, we would have to change unix_state_lock()
to use a non spinning locking primitive (aka lock_sock()), and slowdown normal path.
# perf record -f hackbench 25 process 3000
Running with 25*40 (== 1000) tasks.
Time: 13.330
[ perf record: Woken up 289 times to write data ]
[ perf record: Captured and wrote 54.312 MB perf.data (~2372928 samples) ]
# perf report
# Samples: 2370135
#
# Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
# ........ ......... ............................ ......
#
9.68% hackbench [kernel] [k] do_raw_spin_lock
6.50% hackbench [kernel] [k] schedule
4.38% hackbench [kernel] [k] __kmalloc_track_caller
3.95% hackbench [kernel] [k] copy_to_user
3.86% hackbench [kernel] [k] __alloc_skb
3.77% hackbench [kernel] [k] unix_stream_recvmsg
3.12% hackbench [kernel] [k] sock_alloc_send_pskb
2.75% hackbench [vdso] [.] 0x000000ffffe425
2.28% hackbench [kernel] [k] sysenter_past_esp
2.03% hackbench [kernel] [k] __mutex_lock_common
2.00% hackbench [kernel] [k] kfree
2.00% hackbench [kernel] [k] delay_tsc
1.75% hackbench [kernel] [k] update_curr
1.70% hackbench [kernel] [k] kmem_cache_alloc
1.69% hackbench [kernel] [k] do_raw_spin_unlock
1.60% hackbench [kernel] [k] unix_stream_sendmsg
1.54% hackbench [kernel] [k] sched_clock_local
1.46% hackbench [kernel] [k] __slab_free
1.37% hackbench [kernel] [k] do_raw_read_lock
1.34% hackbench [kernel] [k] __switch_to
1.24% hackbench [kernel] [k] select_task_rq_fair
1.23% hackbench [kernel] [k] sock_wfree
1.21% hackbench [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
1.19% hackbench [kernel] [k] __mutex_unlock_slowpath
1.05% hackbench [kernel] [k] trace_hardirqs_off
0.99% hackbench [kernel] [k] __might_sleep
0.93% hackbench [kernel] [k] do_raw_read_unlock
0.93% hackbench [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
0.91% hackbench [kernel] [k] try_to_wake_up
0.81% hackbench [kernel] [k] sched_clock
0.80% hackbench [kernel] [k] trace_hardirqs_on
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists