Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: aim7 scalability issue on 4 socket machine | From | "Zhang, Yanmin" <> | Date | Fri, 18 Sep 2009 10:02:19 +0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 11:35 +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 17:31 +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > Aim7 result is bad on my new Nehalem machines (4*8*2 logical cpu). Perf counter > > > shows spinlock consumes 70% cpu time on the machine. Lock_stat shows > > > anon_vma->lock causes most of the spinlock contention. Function tracer shows > > > below call chain creates the spinlock. > > > > > > do_brk => vma_merge =>vma_adjust > > > > > > Aim7 consists of lots of subtests. One test is to fork lots of processes and > > > every process calls sbrk for 1000 times to grow/shrink the heap. All the vma of > > > the heap of all sub-processes point to the same anon_vma and use the same > > > anon_vma->lock. When sbrk is called, kernel calls do_brk => vma_merge =>vma_adjust > > > and lock anon_vma->lock to create spinlock contentions. > > > > > > There is a comment section in front of spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock. It says > > > anon_vma lock can be optimized when just changing vma->vm_end. As a matter > > > of fact, anon_vma->lock is used to protect anon_vma->list when an entry is > > > deleted/inserted or the list is accessed. There is no such deletion/insertion > > > if only vma->end is changed in function vma_adjust. > > > > > > Below patch fixes it. > > > > > > Test results with kernel 2.6.31-rc8. The improvement on the machine is about 150%. > > > > Did you see Lee's patch?: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/9/290 > > > > Added Lee and Hugh to CC, retained the below patch for them. > > Thanks a lot for the CC, Peter. > See my reply to that mail for the slightly corrected version. > > Yes, Yanmin and Lee appear to be fixing exactly the same issue. > I haven't thought through Yanmin's version for correctness, but > it lacks the vm_start check I added to Lee's, and I do prefer > Lee's style - hey, nothing personal! > > So, Yanmin, please retest with http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/9/13/25 > and let us know if that works as well for you - thanks. I tested Lee's patch and it does fix the issue.
Yanmin
| |