linux-kernel - Re: Performance regressions in 2.6.30-rc7?

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090715145849.GE25458@duck.suse.cz>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:58:49 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	Diego Calleja <diegocg@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance regressions in 2.6.30-rc7?

On Wed 15-07-09 09:41:02, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> 
> > On Wed 10-06-09 18:12:50, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> writes:
> >> 
> >> > On Tue 09-06-09 14:48:18, Chris Mason wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:32:08PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu 04-06-09 21:13:15, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >> >> > > On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 13:21 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > > > Sequential Writes
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-ordered            6000  65536  32   50.16 508.9%    31.996    45595.78   0.64965  0.02402    10
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-ordered          6000  65536  32   52.70 543.2%    33.658    23794.92   0.71754  0.00836    10
> >> >> > > > > 
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-writeback          6000  65536  32   47.82 525.4%    35.003    32588.84   0.56192  0.02298     9
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-writeback        6000  65536  32   52.52 467.6%    32.397    12972.78   0.53580  0.00522    11
> >> >> > > > > 
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-ordered            6000  65536  16   56.08 254.9%    15.463    33000.68   0.39687  0.00521    22
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-ordered          6000  65536  16   62.40 308.4%    14.701    13455.02   0.13125  0.00208    20
> >> >> > > > > 
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-writeback          6000  65536  16   51.90 281.4%    17.098    12869.85   0.36771  0.00104    18
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-writeback        6000  65536  16   60.53 272.6%    14.977     8637.08   0.21146  0.00000    22
> >> >> > > > > 
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-ordered            6000  65536   8   51.09 113.4%     8.700    14856.55   0.06771  0.00417    45
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-ordered          6000  65536   8   56.13 130.6%     8.098     8400.45   0.03958  0.00000    43
> >> >> > > > > 
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.30-smp-writeback          6000  65536   8   50.19 131.7%     8.680    16821.04   0.11979  0.00208    38
> >> >> > > > > 2.6.29.4-smp-writeback        6000  65536   8   54.90 130.7%     8.244     4925.48   0.10000  0.00000    42
> >> >> > > >   It really seems write has some problems... There's consistently lower
> >> >> > > > throughput and it also seems some writes take really long. I'll try to
> >> >> > > > reproduce it here.
> >> >> > > 
> >> >> > > Looked "pretty solid" to me.  I haven't observed enough to ~trust.
> >> >> >   OK, I did a few runs of tiobench here and I can confirm that I see about
> >> >> > 6% performance regression in Sequential Write throughput between 2.6.29
> >> >> > and 2.6.30-rc8. I'll try to find what's causing it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> My first guess would be the WRITE_SYNC style changes.  Is the regression
> >> >> still there with noop?
> >> >   Thanks for the hint. I was guessing that as well. And experiments show
> >> > it's definitely connected. To be more precise with the data:
> >> > The test machine is 2 CPU, 2 GB ram, simple lowend SATA disk. Tiobench run
> >> > with:
> >> > tiobench/tiobench.pl -b 65536 -t 16 -t 8 -d /local/scratch -s 4096
> >> >   which means 4GB testfile, writes happen in 64k chunks, test done with 16
> >> > and 8 threads. /local/scratch is a separate partition always cleaned and
> >> > umounted + mounted before each test. The results are (always 3 runs):
> >> >     2.6.29+CFQ:           Avg    StdDev
> >> > 8   38.01 40.26 39.69 ->  39.32  0.955092
> >> > 16  40.09 38.18 40.05 ->  39.44  0.891104
> >> >
> >> >     2.6.30-rc8+CFQ:
> >> > 8   36.67 36.81 38.20 ->  37.23  0.69062
> >> > 16  37.45 36.47 37.46 ->  37.13  0.464351
> >> >
> >> >     2.6.29+NOOP:
> >> > 8   38.67 38.66 37.55 ->  38.29  0.525632
> >> > 16  39.59 39.15 39.19 ->  39.31  0.198662
> >> >
> >> >     2.6.30-rc8+NOOP:
> >> > 8   38.31 38.47 38.16 ->  38.31  0.126579
> >> > 16  39.08 39.25 39.13 ->  39.15  0.0713364
> >> 
> >> I ran the same test on a bigger system: 8GB ram (so I used a 16GB size
> >> for the test) and a 4 disk stripe hanging off of a CCISS controller.
> >> All the runs used ext3 in data=ordered mode and CFQ as the I/O scheduler.
> >> 
> >>      2.6.29.3-140.fc11       Avg       StdDev
> >>  8   158.72 152.72 148.24    153.227   5.25834
> >> 16   176.06 174.91 176.27    175.747   0.73214
> >> 
> >>      2.6.30-rc7
> >>  8   147.89 144.57 144.99    145.817   1.8078
> >> 16   121.37 119.56 111.85    117.593   5.05553
> >> 
> >> Jan, let me know if you want any help tracking this down.
> >   OK, so I've found time to follow-up on this. I've checked that
> > congestion_wait fixes Jens sent recently didn't change anything. Also I've
> > verified that backing out WRITE_SYNC related changes didn't help. Finally,
> > I've verified that when I back out all the changes that went to CFQ between
> > 2.6.29 and 2.6.30 and the WRITE_SYNC changes, then the performance is back
> > to original values.
> >   Jens / Jeff, what to do next? I can try to bisect through CFQ changes but
> > that's going to be rather tedious and the result is uncertain since I
> > expect performance to jump up and down as various changes took place. So
> > I'd rather spend my time with something that has a higher chance to
> > succeed...
> >
> 
> Looking through the changelogs, I most suspect this:
> 
> commit 2f5cb7381b737e24c8046fd4aeab571fb71315f5
> Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
> Date:   Tue Apr 7 08:51:19 2009 +0200
> 
>     cfq-iosched: change dispatch logic to deal with single requests at
>     the time
>     
> We had one other regression that bisected to this change, though I don't
> claim to fully understand why just yet.  Take a look at this bug:
>   http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401
> 
> Try Jens' test patch posted there:
>   http://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=21650
> 
> and let us know how that fares.
  It seems that with this test patch, the throughput is somewhere between
2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  I'm now repeating runs more times to get more
statistical reliability because with 3 runs I did so far it's somewhere on
the boundary of statistical meaningfulness...

									Honza 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/