| 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: <4EF74517.40008@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:45:27 +0200 From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, peterz@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, bharata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Gang scheduling in CFS On 12/25/2011 12:58 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/23/2011 12:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Nikunj A Dadhania <nikunj@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > Here some interesting perf reports from inside the guest: > > > > > > Baseline: > > > 29.79% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_flush_tlb_others > > > 18.70% ebizzy libc-2.12.so [.] __GI_memcpy > > > 7.23% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > 5.38% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __do_page_fault > > > 4.50% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add > > > 3.58% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_send_IPI_mask_logical > > > 3.26% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_flush_tlb_single > > > 2.82% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] handle_pte_fault > > > 2.16% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] kunmap_atomic > > > 2.10% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _spin_unlock_irqrestore > > > 1.90% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] down_read_trylock > > > 1.65% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge.clone.4 > > > 1.60% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] up_read > > > 1.24% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask > > > > > > Gang: > > > 22.53% ebizzy libc-2.12.so [.] __GI_memcpy > > > 9.73% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add > > > 8.22% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist > > > 7.80% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] default_send_IPI_mask_logical > > > 7.68% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_flush_tlb_others > > > 6.22% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __do_page_fault > > > 5.54% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_flush_tlb_single > > > 4.44% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _spin_unlock_irqrestore > > > 2.90% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] kunmap_atomic > > > 2.78% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge.clone.4 > > > 2.76% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] handle_pte_fault > > > 2.16% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common > > > 1.59% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] down_read_trylock > > > 1.43% ebizzy [kernel.kallsyms] [k] up_read > > > > > > I see the main difference between both the reports is: > > > native_flush_tlb_others. > > > > So it would be important to figure out why ebizzy gets into so > > many TLB flushes and why gang scheduling makes it go away. <snip> > The first part appears to be unrelated to ebizzy itself - it's the > kunmap_atomic() flushing ptes. It could be eliminated by switching to a > non-highmem kernel, or by allocating more PTEs for kmap_atomic() and > batching the flush. Um, that makes no sense. I was reading the profile as if it was a backtrace. Anyway, google says the ebizzy does a lot of large allocations - and presumably deallocations - to simulate a database workload, which explain the large number of tlb flushes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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