[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090514175500.GB5675@fieldses.org>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 13:55:00 -0400
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@...i.umich.edu>,
Jim Rees <rees@...ch.edu>, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-rc deadline scheduler performance regression for iozone
over NFS
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 07:45:38PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 15:29 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Hi, netdev folks. The summary here is:
> >
> > A patch added in the 2.6.30 development cycle caused a performance
> > regression in my NFS iozone testing. The patch in question is the
> > following:
> >
> > commit 47a14ef1af48c696b214ac168f056ddc79793d0e
> > Author: Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@...i.umich.edu>
> > Date: Tue Oct 21 14:13:47 2008 -0400
> >
> > svcrpc: take advantage of tcp autotuning
> >
> > which is also quoted below. Using 8 nfsd threads, a single client doing
> > 2GB of streaming read I/O goes from 107590 KB/s under 2.6.29 to 65558
> > KB/s under 2.6.30-rc4. I also see more run to run variation under
> > 2.6.30-rc4 using the deadline I/O scheduler on the server. That
> > variation disappears (as does the performance regression) when reverting
> > the above commit.
>
> It looks to me as if we've got a bug in the svc_tcp_has_wspace() helper
> function. I can see no reason why we should stop processing new incoming
> RPC requests just because the send buffer happens to be 2/3 full. If we
I agree, the calculation doesn't look right. But where do you get the
2/3 number from?
...
> @@ -964,23 +973,14 @@ static int svc_tcp_has_wspace(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
> struct svc_sock *svsk = container_of(xprt, struct svc_sock, sk_xprt);
> struct svc_serv *serv = svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_server;
> int required;
> - int wspace;
> -
> - /*
> - * Set the SOCK_NOSPACE flag before checking the available
> - * sock space.
> - */
> - set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &svsk->sk_sock->flags);
> - required = atomic_read(&svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_reserved) + serv->sv_max_mesg;
> - wspace = sk_stream_wspace(svsk->sk_sk);
> -
> - if (wspace < sk_stream_min_wspace(svsk->sk_sk))
> - return 0;
> - if (required * 2 > wspace)
> - return 0;
>
> - clear_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &svsk->sk_sock->flags);
> + required = (atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_reserved) + serv->sv_max_mesg) * 2;
> + if (sk_stream_wspace(svsk->sk_sk) < required)
This calculation looks the same before and after--you've just moved the
"*2" into the calcualtion of "required". Am I missing something? Maybe
you meant to write:
required = atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_reserved) + serv->sv_max_mesg * 2;
without the parentheses?
That looks closer, assuming the calculation is meant to be:
atomic_read(..) == amount of buffer space we think we
already need
serv->sv_max_mesg * 2 == space for worst-case request
and reply?
--b.
> + goto out_nospace;
> return 1;
> +out_nospace:
> + set_bit(SOCK_NOSPACE, &svsk->sk_sock->flags);
> + return 0;
> }
--
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