lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] perf lock: New subcommand "lock" to perf for analyzing lock statistics
On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 04:38:03PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > Also, i agree that the performance aspect is probably the most pressing
> > issue. Note that 'perf bench sched messaging' is very locking intense so
> > a 10x slowdown is not entirely unexpected - we still ought to optimize
> > it all some more. 'perf lock' is an excellent testcase for this in any
> > case.
> >
>
> Here are some test results to show the overhead of lockdep trace events:
>
> select pagefault mmap Memory par Cont_SW
> latency latency latency R/W BD latency
>
> disable ftrace 0 0 0 0 0
>
> enable all ftrace -16.65% -109.80% -93.62% 0.14% -6.94%
>
> enable all ftrace -2.67% 1.08% -3.65% -0.52% -0.68%
> except lockdep
>
>
> We also found big overhead when using kernbench and fio, but we haven't
> verified whether it's caused by lockdep events.
>
> Thanks,
> Xiao


This profile has been done using ftrace with perf right?
It might be because the lock events are high rate events and
fill a lot of perf buffer space. More than other events.
In one of your previous mails, you showed us the difference
of the size of perf.data by capturing either scheduler events
or lock events.

And IIRC, the case of lock events resulted in a 100 MB perf.data
whereas it was a small file for sched events.

The overhead in the pagefault and mmap latency could then
result in the fact we have much more events to save, walking
through much more pages in perf buffer, then faulting more often,
etc.

Plus the fact various locks are taken in mmap and fault path,
generating more lock events.

Just a guess...



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-07 20:51    [W:0.101 / U:1.396 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site