lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] poll: Avoid extra wakeups in select/poll

* Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar a écrit :
> > * Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On uddpping, I had prior to the patch about 49000 wakeups per
> >> second, and after patch about 26000 wakeups per second (matches
> >> number of incoming udp messages per second)
> >
> > very nice. It might not show up as a real performance difference if
> > the CPUs are not fully saturated during the test - but it could show
> > up as a decrease in CPU utilization.
> >
> > Also, if you run the test via 'perf stat -a ./test.sh' you should
> > see a reduction in instructions executed:
> >
> > aldebaran:~/linux/linux> perf stat -a sleep 1
> >
> > Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
> >
> > 16128.045994 task clock ticks (msecs)
> > 12876 context switches (events)
> > 219 CPU migrations (events)
> > 186144 pagefaults (events)
> > 20911802763 CPU cycles (events)
> > 19309416815 instructions (events)
> > 199608554 cache references (events)
> > 19990754 cache misses (events)
> >
> > Wall-clock time elapsed: 1008.882282 msecs
> >
> > With -a it's measured system-wide, from start of test to end of test
> > - the results will be a lot more stable (and relevant) statistically
> > than wall-clock time or CPU usage measurements. (both of which are
> > rather imprecise in general)
>
> I tried this perf stuff and got strange results on a cpu burning
> bench, saturating my 8 cpus with a "while (1) ;" loop
>
>
> # perf stat -a sleep 10
>
> Performance counter stats for 'sleep':
>
> 80334.709038 task clock ticks (msecs)
> 80638 context switches (events)
> 4 CPU migrations (events)
> 468 pagefaults (events)
> 160694681969 CPU cycles (events)
> 160127154810 instructions (events)
> 686393 cache references (events)
> 230117 cache misses (events)
>
> Wall-clock time elapsed: 10041.531644 msecs
>
> So its about 16069468196 cycles per second for 8 cpus
> Divide by 8 to get 2008683524 cycles per second per cpu,
> which is not 3000000000 (E5450 @ 3.00GHz)

What does "perf stat -l -a sleep 10" show? I suspect your counters
are scaled by about 67%, due to counter over-commit. -l will show
the scaling factor (and will scale up the results).

If so then i think this behavior is confusing, and i'll make -l
default-enabled. (in fact i just committed this change to latest
-tip and pushed it out)

To get only instructions and cycles, do:

perf stat -e instructions -e cycles

> It seems strange a "jmp myself" uses one unhalted cycle per
> instruction and 0.5 halted cycle ...
>
> Also, after using "perf stat", tbench results are 1778 MB/S
> instead of 2610 MB/s. Even if no perf stat running.

Hm, that would be a bug. Could you send the dmesg output of:

echo p > /proc/sysrq-trigger
echo p > /proc/sysrq-trigger
with counters running it will show something like:

[ 868.105712] SysRq : Show Regs
[ 868.106544]
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: ctrl: ffffffffffffffff
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: status: 0000000000000000
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: overflow: 0000000000000000
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: fixed: 0000000000000000
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: used: 0000000000000000
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC0 ctrl: 00000000001300c0
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC0 count: 000000ffee889194
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC0 left: 0000000011e1791a
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC1 ctrl: 000000000013003c
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC1 count: 000000ffd2542438
[ 868.106544] CPU#1: gen-PMC1 left: 000000002dd17a8e
the counts should stay put (i.e. all counters should be disabled).
If they move around - despite there being no 'perf stat -a' session
running, that would be a bug.

Also, the overhead might be profile-able, via:

perf record -m 1024 sleep 10

(this records the profile into output.perf.)

followed by:

./perf-report | tail -20
to display a histogram, with kernel-space and user-space symbols
mixed into a single profile.

(Pick up latest -tip to get perf-report built by default.)

Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-30 14:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans