| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:56:25 +0800
From: Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
"rong.a.chen@...el.com" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"lkp@...org" <lkp@...org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
>
>
> On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
>> Hi Trond,
>>
>> I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
>> analyzing the issue.
>
> Ping...
ping...
>
>>
>>
>> In testcase: fsmark
>> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
>> with 384G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> iterations: 20x
>> nr_threads: 64t
>> disk: 1BRD_48G
>> fs: xfs
>> fs2: nfsv4
>> filesize: 4M
>> test_size: 80G
>> sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>
>> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test
>> synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload.
>> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/
>>
>> commit:
>> e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()")
>> 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use iov_iter()")
>>
>> e791f8e9380d945e 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 527.29 -22.6% 407.96 fsmark.files_per_sec
>> 1.97 ± 11% +0.9 2.88 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.smp_apic_timer_interrupt.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry
>>
>> 0.00 +0.9 0.93 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_write_xmit.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages
>>
>> 2.11 ± 10% +0.9 3.05 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary
>>
>> 5.29 ± 2% +1.2 6.46 ± 7%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.svc_recv.nfsd.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> 9.61 ± 5% +3.1 12.70 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> 9.27 ± 5% +3.1 12.40 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
>>
>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> 0.00 +3.4 3.41 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg
>>
>> 0.00 +3.4 3.44 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg
>>
>> 0.00 +3.5 3.54 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages
>>
>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread
>>
>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
>>
>> 1.81 ± 4% +3.8 5.59 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread
>>
>> 1.80 ± 3% +3.8 5.59 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work
>>
>> 1.73 ± 4% +3.8 5.54 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule
>>
>> 1.72 ± 4% +3.8 5.54 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute
>>
>> 0.00 +5.4 5.42 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request
>>
>> 0.00 +5.5 5.52 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit
>>
>> 0.00 +5.5 5.53 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit
>>
>> 9.61 ± 5% +3.1 12.70 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.worker_thread
>> 9.27 ± 5% +3.1 12.40 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.process_one_work
>> 6.19 +3.2 9.40 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms
>> 34.53 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kthread
>> 0.00 +3.5 3.46 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page
>> 0.00 +3.6 3.56 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full
>> 2.47 ± 4% +3.7 6.18 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute
>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule
>> 1.90 ± 4% +3.8 5.67 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.call_transmit
>> 1.89 ± 3% +3.8 5.66 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit
>> 1.82 ± 4% +3.8 5.62 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request
>> 1.81 ± 4% +3.8 5.62 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages
>> 0.21 ± 17% +5.3 5.48 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked
>> 0.25 ± 18% +5.3 5.59 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg
>> 0.26 ± 16% +5.3 5.60 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg
>> 1.19 ± 5% +0.5 1.68 ± 3%
>> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_page_from_freelist
>> 6.10 +3.2 9.27 ± 4%
>> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms
>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2019 10:39 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
>>> Hi Trond,
>>>
>>> On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>>> I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As
>>>> far as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be
>>>> entirely contained in the NUMA section of your results.
>>>> IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead due to NUMA. I've
>>>> been asking whether or not that is a correct interpretation of the
>>>> numbers you published.
>>> Thanks for your feedback. I used the same hardware and the same test
>>> parameters to test the two commits:
>>> e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()")
>>> 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use
>>> iov_iter()")
>>>
>>> If it is caused by NUMA, why only commit 0472e47660 throughput is
>>> decreased? The filesystem we test is NFS, commit 0472e47660 is
>>> related with the network, could you help to check if have any other
>>> clues for the regression. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
--
Zhengjun Xing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists