| 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: <20131105031043.GI30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:10:43 +0800
From: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr.bueso@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to
rwlock_t
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against
> > > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
> > > > >
> > > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest
> > > > > version.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread:
> > > > >
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some
> > > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are
> > > > finished):
> > >
> > > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on?
> >
> > I queued jobs on 5 testboxes:
> > - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server
> > - lkp-ib03: 48 core Ivybridge server
> > - lkp-sb03: 32 core Sandybridge server
> > - lkp-nex04: 64 core NHM server
> > - lkp-a04: Atom server
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d
> > > > ------------------------ ------------------------
> > > > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> > > > +4.3% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test
> > > > +2.2% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared
> > > > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what
> > > these percentages represent?
> >
> > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d
> > ------------------------ ------------------------
> > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> > ....
> > ....
> > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> >
> > The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression
> > at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance
> > optimizations patch set.
>
> Yunahan, thanks for the data. This I assume is with the entire rwsem
> v8 patchset.
Yes, it is; 9 patches in total.
> Any idea of the run variation on the workload?
Your concern is right. The variation is quite big on the brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
testcase.
* - v3.12-rc7
O - fe001e3de090e179f95d
brickland1/micro/aim7/shared: aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
320000 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
310000 ++ .*......... |
| .... ....... |
300000 ++ .... ....... |
| ... ...... |
290000 ++ .... ...|
| .... *
280000 ++ ... |
| .... |
270000 ++.... |
*. O
260000 O+ |
| O |
250000 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
--yliu
> >
> > "brickland1/micro/aim7/shared" tells the testbox(brickland1) and testcase:
> > shared workfile of aim7.
> >
> > The last line tell what field we are comparing, and it's
> > "aim7.2000.jobs-per-min" in this case. 2000 means 2000 users in aim7.
> >
> > > Are they anon vma rwsem + optimistic
> > > spinning patches vs anon vma rwlock?
> >
> > I tested "[PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations" only.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, I see your running aim7, you might be interested in some of the
> > > results I found when trying out Ingo's rwlock conversion patch on a
> > > largish 80 core system: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/29/280
> >
> > Besides aim7, I also tested dbench, hackbench, netperf, pigz. And as you
> > can image and see from the data, aim7 benifit most from the anon_vma
> > optimization stuff due to high contention of anon_vma lock.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --yliu
> >
>
--
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