Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:22:35 -0600
From:	"Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@...ell.com>
To:	<davem@...emloft.net>, "Patrick Mullaney" <PMullaney@...ell.com>
Cc:	"Herbert Xu" <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	<chuck.lever@...cle.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Fwd: Re: Killing sk->sk_callback_lock

Oddly enough, forwarding an email does seem to linewrap..so perhaps this one is easier to read:

Regards,
-Greg

>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 12:01 AM, in message <4856FEC9.BA47.005A.0@...ell.com>,
Gregory Haskins wrote: 
> >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at  9:53 PM, in message
> <20080616.185328.85842051.davem@...emloft.net>, David Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: 
>> From: "Patrick Mullaney" <pmullaney@...ell.com>
>> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:38:23 -0600
>> 
>>> The overhead I was trying to address was scheduler overhead.
>> 
>> Neither Herbert nor I are convinced of this yet, and you have
>> to show us why you think this is the problem and not (in
>> our opinion) the more likely sk_callback_lock overhead.
> 
> Please bear with us.  It is not our intent to be annoying, but we are 
> perhaps doing a poor job of describing the actual nature of the issue we are 
> seeing.
> 
> To be clear on how we got to this point: We are tasked with improving the 
> performance of our particular kernel configuration.  We observed that our 
> configuration was comparatively poor at UDP performance, so we started 
> investigating why.  We instrumented the kernel using various tools (lockdep, 
> oprofile, logdev, etc), and observed two wakeups for every packet that was 
> received while running a multi-threaded netperf UDP throughput benchmark on 
> some 8-core boxes.
> 
> A common pattern would emerge during analysis of the instrumentation data: 
> An arbitrary client thread would block on the wait-queue waiting for a UDP 
> packet.  It would of course initially block because there were no packets 
> available.  It would then wake up, check the queue, see that there are still 
> no packets available, and go back to sleep.  It would then wake up again a 
> short time later, find a packet, and return to userspace.
> 
> This seemed odd to us, so we investigated further to see if an improvement 
> was lurking or whether this was expected.  We traced back the source of each 
> wakeup to be coming from 1) the wmem/nospace code, and 2) from the rx-wakeup 
> code from the softirq.  First the softirq would process the tx-completions 
> which would wake_up() the wait-queue for NOSPACE signaling.  Since the client 
> was waiting for a packet on the same wait-queue, this was where the first 
> wakeup came from.  Then later the softirq finally pushed an actual packet to 
> the queue, and the client was once again re-awoken via the same overloaded 
> wait-queue.  This time it would successfully find a packet and return to 
> userspace.
> 
> Since the client does not care about wmem/nospace in the UDP rx path, yet 
> the two events share a single wait-queue, the first wakeup was completely 
> wasted.  It just causes extra scheduling activity that does not help in any 
> way (and is quite expensive in the grand-scheme of things).  Based on this 
> lead, Pat devised a solution which eliminates the extra wake-up() when there 
> are no clients waiting for that particular NOSPACE event.  With his patch 
> applied, we observed two things:
> 
> 1) We now had 1 wake-up per packet, instead of 2 (decreasing context 
> switching rates by ~50%)
> 2) overall UDP throughput performance increased by ~25%
> 
> This was true even without the presence of our instrumentation, so I don't 
> think we can chalk up the "double-wake" analysis as an anomaly caused by the 
> presence of the instrumentation itself.  Based on that, it would at least 
> appear that the odd behavior w.r.t. the phantom wakeup does indeed hinder 
> performance.  This is not to say that the locking issues you highlight are 
> not also an issue.  But note that we have no evidence to suggest this 
> particular phenomenon it is related in any way to the locking (in fact, 
> sk_callback_lock was not showing up at all on the lockdep radar for this 
> particular configuration, indicating a low contention rate).
> 
> So by all means, if there are improvements to the locking that can be made, 
> thats great!  But fixing the locking will not likely address this scheduler 
> overhead that Pat refers to IMO.  They would appear to be orthogonal issues.  
> I will keep an open mind, but the root-cause seems to be either the tendency 
> of the stack code to overload the wait-queue, or the fact that UDP sockets do 
> not dynamically manage the NOSPACE state flags.  From my perspective, I am 
> not married to any one particular solution as long as the fundamental 
> "phantom wakeup" problem is addressed.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Regards,
> -Greg
> 
> 


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists