[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121002131421.GN29125@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 14:14:21 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Netperf UDP_STREAM regression due to not sending IPIs in
ttwu_queue()
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:31:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 09:45 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote:
>
> > > Hm, 518cd623 fixed up the troubles I saw. How exactly are you running
> > > this?
> > >
> >
> > You saw problems with TCP_RR where as this is UDP_STREAM.
>
> Yeah, but I wanted to stare at UDP_STREAM as you run it to see if it
> would tell me anything about why those numbers happen.
>
> > I'm running this through MMTests with a version of the
> > configs/config-global-dhp__network-performance file that only runs
> > netperf-udp. Ultimately it runs netperf for a size something like
> > this
> >
> > SIZE=64
> > taskset -c 0 netserver
> > taskset -c 1 netperf -t UDP_STREAM -i 50,6 -I 99,1 -l 20 -H 127.0.0.1 -- -P 15895 -s 32768 -S 32768 -m $SIZE -M $SIZE
>
lock_stat points at the runqueue lock which makes sense as without the
IPI the rq->lock has to be taken
3.3.0-vanilla
class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&rq->lock: 37062 37063 0.08 10.43 11037.66 410701252 1029063029 0.00 14.35 234556106.12
---------
&rq->lock 14064 [<ffffffff81420a76>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710
&rq->lock 33 [<ffffffff8107791d>] idle_balance+0x13d/0x190
&rq->lock 11810 [<ffffffff8106cac7>] ttwu_queue+0x47/0xf0
&rq->lock 283 [<ffffffff81067f86>] task_rq_lock+0x56/0xa0
---------
&rq->lock 22305 [<ffffffff8106cac7>] ttwu_queue+0x47/0xf0
&rq->lock 11260 [<ffffffff81420a76>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710
&rq->lock 158 [<ffffffff8107791d>] idle_balance+0x13d/0x190
&rq->lock 8 [<ffffffff810772a6>] load_balance+0x356/0x500
3.3.0-revert
&rq->lock: 10831 10833 0.09 10.47 4448.19 87877 768253556 0.00 16.00 140103672.33
---------
&rq->lock 685 [<ffffffff810771d8>] load_balance+0x348/0x500
&rq->lock 8688 [<ffffffff8106d045>] try_to_wake_up+0x215/0x2e0
&rq->lock 1010 [<ffffffff814209b6>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710
&rq->lock 228 [<ffffffff81067f86>] task_rq_lock+0x56/0xa0
---------
&rq->lock 3317 [<ffffffff814209b6>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710
&rq->lock 789 [<ffffffff810771d8>] load_balance+0x348/0x500
&rq->lock 363 [<ffffffff810770a4>] load_balance+0x214/0x500
&rq->lock 2 [<ffffffff810771e6>] load_balance+0x356/0x500
Note the difference in acq-bounces. I had to stop at this point and move
back to some CMA breakage I introduced.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
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