Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression | From | Xing Zhengjun <> | Date | Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:56:25 +0800 |
| |
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
| |