[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120416092437.GB27526@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:24:37 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW)" <Dennis1.Chen@....com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] tools perf: Add a new benchmark tool for
semaphore/mutex
* Chen, Dennis (SRDC SW) <Dennis1.Chen@....com> wrote:
> <PATCH PREFACE>
> -------------------
> This patch series are used to add a new performance benchmark tool for semaphore or mutex:
> The new tool will fork NR tasks specified through the command line and bind each of them
> to every CPUs in the system equally. The command to launch the tool looks like:
> '# perf bench locking mutex -p 8 -t 400 -c'
>
> The above command will create 400 tasks in a system with 8-CPU, each CPU will have 50 tasks.
> After the task be created, it will read all the files and directories in '/sys/module'.
> sysfs is RAM based and its read operation for both dir and file is very sensitive for mutex
> lock, also '/sys/module' has almost no dependencies on external devices.
>
> We can use this tool with 'perf record' command to get the hot-spot of the codes or
> 'perf top -g' to get live info, for example, below is a test case run in a intel i7-2600 box
> (-c option is to get the cpu cycles, I don't use it in this test case):
>
> # perf record -a perf bench locking mutex -p 8 -t 4000
> # Running locking/mutex benchmark...
> ...
> [13894 ]/6 duration 23 s 609392 us
> [13996 ]/4 duration 23 s 599418 us
> [14056 ]/0 duration 23 s 595710 us
> [13715 ]/3 duration 23 s 621719 us
> [13390 ]/6 duration 23 s 644020 us
> [13696 ]/0 duration 23 s 623101 us
> [14334 ]/6 duration 23 s 580262 us
> [14343 ]/7 duration 23 s 578702 us
> [14283 ]/3 duration 23 s 583007 us
> -----------------------------------
> Total duration 79353 s 943945 us
>
> real: 23.84 s
> user: 0.00
> sys: 0.45
>
> # perf report
> ===================================================================================
> ...
> # perf version : 3.3.2
> # arch : x86_64
> # nrcpus online : 8
> # nrcpus avail : 8
> # cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
> # total memory : 3966460 kB
> # cmdline : /usr/bin/perf record -a perf bench locking mutex -p 8 -t 4000
>
> # Events: 131K cycles
> #
> # Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> # ........ ............... ................................. .....................................
> #
> 22.12% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __mutex_lock_slowpath
> 8.27% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> 6.16% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_unlock
> 5.22% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_spin_on_owner
> 4.94% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sysfs_refresh_inode
> 4.82% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mutex_lock
> 2.67% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __mutex_unlock_slowpath
> 2.61% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] link_path_walk
> 2.42% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
> 1.61% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __d_lookup
> 1.18% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] clear_page_c
> 1.16% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] dput
> 0.97% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] do_lookup
> 0.93% swapper [kernel.kallsyms] [k] intel_idle
> 0.87% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] get_page_from_freelist
> 0.85% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __strncpy_from_user
> 0.81% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] system_call
> 0.78% perf libc-2.13.so [.] 0x84ef0
> 0.71% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] vfsmount_lock_local_lock
> 0.68% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sysfs_dentry_revalidate
> 0.62% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] try_to_wake_up
> 0.62% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] kfree
> 0.60% perf [kernel.kallsyms] [k] kmem_cache_alloc
> ............................................................................................
>
Nice! Would be nice to lift some of this information over into
the changelogs, to address my complaints in the previous mail.
> We can see that for 4000 tasks running in 8 CPUs simultaneously, it will create a very heavy
> contention for the mutex lock, so lot's of tasks enter into the slow path of the mutex lock...
> I am very curious if we switch the mutex to the semaphore in this case, how's thing going?
> My next plan
Seems like an unfinished sentence.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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