[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1430930016.14545.39.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 09:33:36 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
viresh kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>, shashim@...eaurora.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, cl@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] timer: Avoid waking up an idle-core by migrate
running timer
On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 15:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 14:45 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > > You definitely have a point from the high throughput networking
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > Though in a power optimizing scenario with minimal network traffic
> > > this might be the wrong decision. We have to gather data from the
> > > power maniacs whether this matters or not. The FULL_NO_HZ camp might
> > > be pretty unhappy about the above.
> >
> > Sure, I understand.
> >
> >
> > To make this clear, here the profile on a moderately loaded TCP server,
> > pushing ~20Gbits of data. Most of TCP output is ACK clock driven (thus
> > from softirq context).
> >
> > (using regular sendmsg() system calls, that why the
> > get_nohz_timer_target() is 'only' second in the profile, but add the
> > find_next_bit() to it and this is very close being at first position)
> >
> >
> >
> > PerfTop: 4712 irqs/sec kernel:96.7% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz cycles], (all, 72 CPUs)
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 10.16% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
> > 5.66% [kernel] [k] get_nohz_timer_target
> > 5.59% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> > 2.53% [kernel] [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> > 2.27% [kernel] [k] find_next_bit
> > 1.90% [kernel] [k] tcp_ack
> >
> > Maybe a reasonable heuristic would be to
> > change /proc/sys/kernel/timer_migration default to 0 on hosts with more
> > than 32 cpus.
> >
> > profile with timer_migration = 0
> >
> > PerfTop: 3656 irqs/sec kernel:94.3% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz cycles], (all, 72 CPUs)
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 13.95% [kernel] [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
> > 4.65% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> > 2.57% [kernel] [k] __netif_receive_skb_core
> > 2.33% [kernel] [k] tcp_ack
>
> Is that with the static key patch applied?
This was without.
I applied your patch on current linus tree, but for some reason my 72
cpu host is not liking the resulting kernel. I had to ask for a repair,
and this might take a while.
Note your kernel works correctly on other hosts, but with 48 or 32 cpus,
so this must be something unrelated.
I'll let you know when I get more interesting data.
Thanks
--
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