Message-Id: <1233182618.25546.33.camel@bluishred.int.infinisim.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:43:37 -0800
From:	Steven Patrick <steven@...s.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 12564] New: poor performance while
	preprocessing source code

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 13:29 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (switched to email.  Please respond via emailed reply-to-all, not via the
> bugzilla web interface).
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 11:29:52 -0800 (PST)
> bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org wrote:
> 
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12564
> > 
> >            Summary: poor performance while preprocessing source code
> >            Product: IO/Storage
> 
> Thanks for the report.
> 
> >            Version: 2.5
> >      KernelVersion: 2.6.28.2
> >           Platform: All
> >         OS/Version: Linux
> >               Tree: Mainline
> >             Status: NEW
> >           Severity: normal
> >           Priority: P1
> >          Component: Other
> >         AssignedTo: io_other@...nel-bugs.osdl.org
> >         ReportedBy: steven@...s.net
> > 
> > 
> > Latest working kernel version: 2.6.26-rc3
> > Earliest failing kernel version: 2.6.26-rc4 (or 2.6.26-rc3 + patch)
> 
> (huge performance regression in NFS)
>  
> > Distribution: gentoo
> > 
> > Hardware Environment:
> >   Various 32 and 64 bit Intel and AMD machines with various
> > PATA and SATA disks and various network interfaces.
> > 
> > Problem Description:
> >   Here's my situation.  I've recently upgraded the kernels
> > on ~30 computers at work (from 2.6.21 to 2.6.27).  These 
> > computers are used to build and test software we develop.  
> > We speed up the building process using distcc.  However,
> > after the kernel upgrade, the builds are much much slower.
> > The preprocessing stage seems to be at least 10 times
> > slower.
> >   As evidence of this slowdown I am attaching two images created
> > using distccmon-gnome.  Both snapshots were taken shortly 
> > after starting builds in a clean sandbox.  The only difference
> > is the kernel.  "fast.png" was generated while running
> > kernel 2.6.25.20.  "slow.png" was generated with 2.6.26.
> > The light purple sections indicate the preprocessing times
> > for each file.  
> >   This slowdown is observed on both 32 and 64 bit computers
> > and using either gcc or the intel compiler. (The intel compiler
> > builds do not use distcc, but that are also slower.)  Strangely 
> > enough, it's still faster to use an NFS mounted sandbox on a
> > machine with an older kernel than the same sandbox on the local
> > machine with a newer kernel.  (This suggests to me that it
> > is neither a disk or network IO problem.)
> >   I've used git bisect to narrow it down to a single commit:
> > # bad: [b0b539739fe9b7d75002412a787cfdf4efddbc33] NFS: Ensure that 'noac'
> > and/or 'actimeo=0' turn off attribute caching
> 
> And thanks for bisecting it.

  I think it might be possible to bisect further, but I
don't know how get git to do it.  

> > This is the first commit after v2.6.26-rc3.  I'm not an
> > experienced git user, so I don't know how to narrow it down
> > further.  Distccmon-gnome snapshots from the bisection
> > process are similar to the ones noted above.
> >   Naturally, I would like the newer kernels to have similar
> > performance to the older kernels.
> >   I will be attaching various items.  Let me know what other 
> > information might be helpful.
> > 
> > Steps to reproduce:
> > distccmon-gnome &
> > # using a makefile setup to use distcc:
> > make -j 5 all
> > # note preprocessing times in distccmon
> > 
> 
> Something I don't understand from this:
> 
> If your normal setup is using distcc then what role does NFS have to
> play?  I mean, distcc kind-of replaces NFS in this workload.

  I don't believe that this actually has anything to do
with NFS.  The only way I could see NFS coming into this is the
fact that I use amd to automount home directories.
  The commit mentioned above modifies just over 100 files, very
few of which appear related to NFS.  I've attached the diifs.
It appears to be a number of fixes rolled up into one patch.
This is why I believe it might be possible to continue bisecting
with git.  But, to do that I suspect I would need to use a
different repository and/or tag or version names.
  BTW, the diffs were generated with "git diff v2.6.26-rc3"
after having done the bisection.  This is why it looks to me
like this one commit includes multiple updates.  Since all
bisection iterations were bad, the diffs against the good
version must be the diffs of the one commit.  Of course, I 
reserve the right to have made a mistake or not understand 
things completely.
  There was one other detail that seemed strange.  In the
last four bisection iterations, the kernel identified
itself as -rc2 instead of -rc3.  I assumed an update
accidentally changed it back.

> 
> Perhaps you could briefly describe the topology/data-flow/etc so that
> we can see how NFS could be a bottleneck here?
> 
> Thanks.

Download attachment "diffs.txt.gz" of type "application/x-gzip" (34743 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists