[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a9i0l3v1.fsf@xmission.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 02:43:14 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: -27% netperf TCP_STREAM regression by "tcp_memcontrol: Kill struct tcp_memcontrol"
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 09:38:10PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> writes:
>>
>> > From: fengguang.wu@...el.com
>> > Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 22:41:29 +0100
>> >
>> >> We noticed big netperf throughput regressions
>> >>
>> >> a4fe34bf902b8f709c63 2e685cad57906e19add7
>> >> ------------------------ ------------------------
>> >> 707.40 -40.7% 419.60 lkp-nex04/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
>> >> 2775.60 -23.7% 2116.40 lkp-sb03/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
>> >> 3483.00 -27.2% 2536.00 TOTAL netperf.Throughput_Mbps
>> >>
>> >> and bisected it to
>> >>
>> >> commit 2e685cad57906e19add7189b5ff49dfb6aaa21d3
>> >> Author: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
>> >> Date: Sat Oct 19 16:26:19 2013 -0700
>> >>
>> >> tcp_memcontrol: Kill struct tcp_memcontrol
>> >
>> > Eric please look into this, I'd rather have a fix to apply than revert your
>> > work.
>>
>> Will do I expect some ordering changed, and that changed the cache line
>> behavior.
>>
>> If I can't find anything we can revert this one particular patch without
>> affecting anything else, but it would be nice to keep the data structure
>> smaller.
>>
>> Fengguag what would I need to do to reproduce this?
>
> Eric, attached is the kernel config.
>
> We used these commands in the test:
>
> netserver
> netperf -t TCP_STREAM -c -C -l 120 # repeat 64 times and get average
>
> btw, we've got more complete change set (attached) and also noticed
> performance increase in the TCP_SENDFILE case:
>
> a4fe34bf902b8f709c63 2e685cad57906e19add7
> ------------------------ ------------------------
> 707.40 -40.7% 419.60 lkp-nex04/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
> 2572.20 -17.7% 2116.20 lkp-sb03/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_MAERTS
> 2775.60 -23.7% 2116.40 lkp-sb03/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
> 1006.60 -54.4% 459.40 lkp-sbx04/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
> 3278.60 -25.2% 2453.80 lkp-t410/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_MAERTS
> 1902.80 +21.7% 2315.00 lkp-t410/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_SENDFILE
> 3345.40 -26.7% 2451.00 lkp-t410/micro/netperf/120s-200%-TCP_STREAM
> 15588.60 -20.9% 12331.40 TOTAL netperf.Throughput_Mbps
I have a second question. Do you mount the cgroup filesystem? Do you
set memory.kmem.tcp.limit_in_bytes?
If you aren't setting any memory cgroup limits or creating any groups
this change should not have had any effect whatsoever. And you haven't
mentioned it so I don't expect you are enabling the memory cgroup limits
explicitly.
If you have enabled the memory cgroups can you please describe your
configuration as that may play a significant role.
Eric
--
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