lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BFS vs. mainline scheduler benchmarks and measurements

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> That's interesting. I tried to reproduce it on x86, but the
> profile does not show any scheduler overhead at all on the server:

I've now simulated a saturated iperf server by adding an
udelay(3000) to e1000_intr() in via the patch below.

There's no idle time left that way:

Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 2.6%sy, 0.0%ni, 0.0%id, 0.0%wa, 93.2%hi, 4.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 1021044k total, 93400k used, 927644k free, 5068k buffers
Swap: 8193140k total, 0k used, 8193140k free, 25404k cached

PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
1604 mingo 20 0 38300 956 724 S 99.4 0.1 3:15.07 iperf
727 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.2 0.0 0:00.41 kondemand/0
1226 root 20 0 6452 336 240 S 0.2 0.0 0:00.06 irqbalance
1387 mingo 20 0 78872 1988 1300 S 0.2 0.2 0:00.23 sshd
1657 mingo 20 0 12752 1128 800 R 0.2 0.1 0:01.34 top
1 root 20 0 10320 684 572 S 0.0 0.1 0:01.79 init
2 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 0.0 0.0 0:00.00 kthreadd

And the server is only able to saturate half of the 1 gigabit
bandwidth:

Client connecting to t, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.0.1.19 port 50836 connected with 10.0.1.14 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 504 MBytes 423 Mbits/sec
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to t, TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 16.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 3] local 10.0.1.19 port 50837 connected with 10.0.1.14 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 502 MBytes 420 Mbits/sec

perf top is showing:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PerfTop: 28517 irqs/sec kernel:99.4% [100000 cycles], (all, 1 CPUs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
samples pcnt kernel function
_______ _____ _______________
139553.00 - 93.2% : delay_tsc
2098.00 - 1.4% : hmac_digest
561.00 - 0.4% : ip_call_ra_chain
335.00 - 0.2% : neigh_alloc
279.00 - 0.2% : __hash_conntrack
257.00 - 0.2% : dev_activate
186.00 - 0.1% : proc_tcp_available_congestion_control
178.00 - 0.1% : e1000_get_regs
167.00 - 0.1% : tcp_event_data_recv

delay_tsc() dominates, as expected. Still zero scheduler overhead
and the contex-switch rate is well below 1000 per sec.

Then i booted v2.6.30 vanilla, added the udelay(3000) and got:

[ 5] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 47026
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 493 MBytes 412 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 47027
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 520 MBytes 436 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 47028
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 506 MBytes 424 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 47029
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 496 MBytes 415 Mbits/sec

i.e. essentially the same throughput. (and this shows that using .30
versus .31 did not materially impact iperf performance in this test,
under these conditions and with this hardware)

The i applied the BFS patch to v2.6.30 and used the same
udelay(3000) hack and got:

No measurable change in throughput.

Obviously, this test is not equivalent to your test - but it does
show that even saturated iperf is getting scheduled just fine. (or,
rather, does not get scheduled all that much.)

[ 5] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 38505
[ 5] 0.0-10.1 sec 481 MBytes 401 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 38506
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 505 MBytes 423 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 38507
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 508 MBytes 426 Mbits/sec
[ 4] local 10.0.1.14 port 5001 connected with 10.0.1.19 port 38508
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 486 MBytes 406 Mbits/sec

So either your MIPS system has some unexpected dependency on the
scheduler, or there's something weird going on.

Mind poking on this one to figure out whether it's all repeatable
and why that slowdown happens? Multiple attempts to reproduce it
failed here for me.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-08 09:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site