| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4921539B.2000002@cosmosbay.com> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:20:59 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org, efault@....de, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 Ingo Molnar a écrit : > * David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > >> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> >> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:06:48 +0100 >> >>> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote: >>> >>>> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report >>>> of regressions introduced between 2.6.26 and 2.6.27. >>>> >>>> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions >>>> introduced between 2.6.26 and 2.6.27. Please verify if it still should >>>> be listed and let me know (either way). >>>> >>>> >>>> Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11308 >>>> Subject : tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 >>>> Submitter : Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> >>>> Date : 2008-08-11 18:36 (98 days old) >>>> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121847986119495&w=4 >>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=122125737421332&w=4 >>> Christoph, as per the recent analysis of Mike: >>> >>> http://fixunix.com/kernel/556867-regression-benchmark-throughput-loss-a622cf6-f7160c7-pull.html >>> >>> all scheduler components of this regression have been eliminated. >>> >>> In fact his numbers show that scheduler speedups since 2.6.22 have >>> offset and hidden most other sources of tbench regression. (i.e. the >>> scheduler portion got 5% faster, hence it was able to offset a >>> slowdown of 5% in other areas of the kernel that tbench triggers) >> Although I respect the improvements, wake_up() is still several >> orders of magnitude slower than it was in 2.6.22 and wake_up() is at >> the top of the profiles in tbench runs. > > hm, several orders of magnitude slower? That contradicts Mike's > numbers and my own numbers and profiles as well: see below. > > The scheduler's overhead barely even registers on a 16-way x86 system > i'm running tbench on. Here's the NMI profile during 64 threads tbench > on a 16-way x86 box with an v2.6.28-rc5 kernel [config attached]: > > Throughput 3437.65 MB/sec 64 procs > ================================== > 21570252 total > ........ > 1494803 copy_user_generic_string > 998232 sock_rfree > 491471 tcp_ack > 482405 ip_dont_fragment > 470685 ip_local_deliver > 436325 constant_test_bit [ called by napi_disable_pending() ] > 375469 avc_has_perm_noaudit > 347663 tcp_sendmsg > 310383 tcp_recvmsg > 300412 __inet_lookup_established > 294377 system_call > 286603 tcp_transmit_skb > 251782 selinux_ip_postroute > 236028 tcp_current_mss > 235631 schedule > 234013 netif_rx > 229854 _local_bh_enable_ip > 219501 tcp_v4_rcv > > [ etc. - see full profile attached further below ] > > Note that the scheduler does not even show up in the profile up to > entry #15! > > I've also summarized NMI profiler output by major subsystems: > > NET overhead (12603450/21570252): 58.43% > security overhead ( 1903598/21570252): 8.83% > usercopy overhead ( 1753617/21570252): 8.13% > sched overhead ( 1599406/21570252): 7.41% > syscall overhead ( 560487/21570252): 2.60% > IRQ overhead ( 555439/21570252): 2.58% > slab overhead ( 492421/21570252): 2.28% > timer overhead ( 226573/21570252): 1.05% > pagealloc overhead ( 192681/21570252): 0.89% > PID overhead ( 115123/21570252): 0.53% > VFS overhead ( 107926/21570252): 0.50% > pagecache overhead ( 62552/21570252): 0.29% > gtod overhead ( 38651/21570252): 0.18% > IDLE overhead ( 0/21570252): 0.00% > --------------------------------------------------------- > left ( 1349494/21570252): 6.26% > > The scheduler's functions are absolutely flat, and consistent with an > extreme context-switching rate of 1.35 million per second. The > scheduler can go up to about 20 million context switches per second on > this system: > > procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- --system-- -----cpu------ > r b swpd free buff cache si so bi bo in cs us sy id wa st > 32 0 0 32229696 29308 649880 0 0 0 0 164135 20026853 24 76 0 0 0 > 32 0 0 32229752 29308 649880 0 0 0 0 164203 20032770 24 76 0 0 0 > 32 0 0 32229752 29308 649880 0 0 0 0 164201 20036492 25 75 0 0 0 > > ... and 7% scheduling overhead is roughly consistent with 1.35/20.0. > > Wake up affinities and data flow caching is just fine in this workload > - we've got scheduler statistics for that and they look good too. > > It all looks like pure old-fashioned straight overhead in the > networking layer to me. Do we still touch the same global cacheline > for every localhost packet we process? Anything like that would show > up big time. Yes we do, I find strange we dont see dst_release() in your NMI profile I posted a patch ( commit 5635c10d976716ef47ae441998aeae144c7e7387 net: make sure struct dst_entry refcount is aligned on 64 bytes) (in net-next-2.6 tree) to properly align struct dst_entry refcounter and got 4% speedup on tbench on my machine. Small speedups too with commit ef711cf1d156428d4c2911b8c86c6ce90519dc45 (net: speedup dst_release()) Also on net-next-2.6, patches avoid dirtying last_rx on netdevices (loopback for example) , it helps a lot tbench too. -- 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