| 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: <1371061123.9844.269.camel@gandalf.local.home> Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:18:43 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, 赖江山 <laijs@...fujitsu.com>, Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>, niv@...ibm.com, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Darren Hart <darren@...art.com>, Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, sbw@....edu Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC ticketlock] Auto-queued ticketlock On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 10:50 -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 14:10 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > Perhaps short work loads have a cold cache, and the impact on cache is > > not as drastic? > > > > It would be interesting to see what perf reports on these runs. > > After running the aim7 workloads on Paul's v3 patch (same 80 core, 8 > socket box - HT off) the results are quite similar to the v1. One > difference is that the five_sec workload benefited with +15% throughput > after 500 users. Thanks, > > Taking a further look at each workload: > > * five_sec: spends a large amount of time in the newish mcs style lock > at the spin on owner for the inode->i_mutex: > > 24.13% 315655 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock > | > --- mspin_lock > | > |--99.76%-- __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath > | mutex_lock_killable > | vfs_readdir > | SyS_getdents > | system_call_fastpath > | __getdents64 > > With this patch: > 23.56% 310531 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock > | > --- mspin_lock > | > |--99.78%-- __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath > | mutex_lock_killable > | vfs_readdir > | SyS_getdents > | system_call > | __getdents64 Note, the mspin_lock is not interesting, as its not affected by this patch. > > * custom: Got a -33% throughput regression with this patch with 10-100 > users and -46% with 100 users and up. It spends most kernel space time > dealing trying to take the inode->i_mutex and the ext4 ->s_orphan_lock > (note that all runs are performed on ramdisks with ext4): > > 3.12% 137131 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock > | > --- mspin_lock > | > |--82.98%-- __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath > | mutex_lock_killable > | vfs_readdir > | SyS_getdents > | system_call_fastpath > | __getdents64 > | > |--16.97%-- __mutex_lock_slowpath > | mutex_lock > | | > | |--47.65%-- ext4_orphan_del > | |--45.01%-- ext4_orphan_add > > With this patch: > 2.14% 109982 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] mspin_lock Less time in the mspin_lock as it's probably now in the real spin lock somewhere. > | > --- mspin_lock > | > |--68.67%-- __mutex_lock_killable_slowpath > | mutex_lock_killable > | vfs_readdir > | SyS_getdents > | system_call > | __getdents64 > | > |--31.24%-- __mutex_lock_slowpath > | mutex_lock > | | > | |--40.36%-- ext4_orphan_del > > > * short: is the big winner for this patch, +69% throughput improvement > with 100-2000 users. This makes a lot of sense since the workload spends > a ridiculous amount of time trying to acquire the d_lock: > > 84.86% 1569902 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock > | > --- _raw_spin_lock > | > |--49.96%-- dget_parent > | __fsnotify_parent > |--49.71%-- dput > | | > | |--99.98%-- __fsnotify_parent > > With this patch: > 70.65% 467422 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] tkt_q_do_spin > | > --- tkt_q_do_spin > | > |--100.00%-- tkt_spin_pass > | | > | |--100.00%-- _raw_spin_lock > | | | > | | |--50.07%-- dget_parent > | | | __fsnotify_parent > | | |--49.93%-- dput > | | | __fsnotify_parent This looks to be where the patch helps. The run without the patch is hammering away at the cacheline of the d_lock, which I'm sure shares the cache of other items in the dentry, such as the d_count. With the patch, the spin is on a separate cacheline and doesn't affect the owner so much. > > > * disk: This patch benefits when adding more concurrency. Got -57% with > 10-100 users, -25% with 100-1000 users and +8% with over 1000 users. > Spends a good amount of time dealing with the wait_queue lock. The perf > traces are with 80 users, where we see the worst numbers: > > 22.34% 20400 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > | > --- _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > | > |--50.28%-- __wake_up > | | > | |--99.10%-- __wake_up_bit > | | wake_up_bit > | | unlock_buffer > | > |--33.73%-- prepare_to_wait_exclusive > | __wait_on_bit_lock > | out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock > | __lock_buffer > | do_get_write_access > | jbd2_journal_get_write_access > | __ext4_journal_get_write_access > |--14.76%-- finish_wait > | | > | |--98.93%-- __wait_on_bit_lock > | | out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock > | | __lock_buffer > | | do_get_write_access > | | jbd2_journal_get_write_access > | | __ext4_journal_get_write_access > > > With this patch the the time spent in the mentioned spinlocks > considerably reduced: > 8.09% 6237 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __read_lock_failed > | > --- __read_lock_failed > _raw_read_lock > | > |--99.08%-- start_this_handle > | jbd2__journal_start > | __ext4_journal_start_sb > > 1.48% 1032 reaim [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > | > --- _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > | > |--50.77%-- prepare_to_wait > | | > | |--72.61%-- jbd2_log_wait_commit > | | jbd2_complete_transaction > |--21.76%-- prepare_to_wait_exclusive > | __wait_on_bit_lock > | out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock > | __lock_buffer > | do_get_write_access > | jbd2_journal_get_write_access > |--11.46%-- __wake_up > | | > | |--44.21%-- ftrace_define_fields_jbd2_run_stats > | | __ext4_journal_stop > |--10.39%-- finish_wait > | | > | |--53.18%-- __wait_on_bit_lock > | | out_of_line_wait_on_bit_lock > | | __lock_buffer > | | do_get_write_access > | | jbd2_journal_get_write_access > | | __ext4_journal_get_write_access Interesting that this trace doesn't show it going into patch code at all. I wonder if adding the slight overhead to the spin lock itself shifts things enough to get a benefit by avoiding contention? -- Steve -- 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