lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRE: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
I'm not sure that Orion is going to give useful results in your hardware setup.  I suspect you don't have enough spindles to get the IO rates that are required to see the problem.  How about doing lots of contiguous I/O instead?  Something as simple as:

for i in sda sdb sdc (repeat ad nauseam); do \
dd if=/dev/$i of=/dev/null bs=4k iflag=direct & \
done

might be enough to get I/O rates high enough to see problems in the interrupt handler.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anirban Chakraborty [mailto:anirban.chakraborty@qlogic.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 11:30 PM
> To: Styner, Douglas W; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: Tripathi, Sharad C; arjan@linux.intel.com; Wilcox, Matthew R; Kleen,
> Andi; Siddha, Suresh B; Ma, Chinang; Wang, Peter Xihong; Nueckel, Hubert;
> Recalde, Luis F; Nelson, Doug; Cheng, Wu-sun; Prickett, Terry O;
> Shunmuganathan, Rajalakshmi; Garg, Anil K; Chilukuri, Harita;
> chris.mason@oracle.com
> Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
>
>
>
>
> On 5/4/09 8:54 AM, "Styner, Douglas W" <douglas.w.styner@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > <this time with subject line>
> > Summary: Measured the mainline kernel from kernel.org (2.6.30-rc4).
> >
> > The regression for 2.6.30-rc4 against the baseline, 2.6.24.2 is 2.15%
> > (2.6.30-rc3 regression was 1.91%). Oprofile reports 70.1204% user,
> 29.874%
> > system.
> >
> > Linux OLTP Performance summary
> > Kernel# Speedup(x) Intr/s CtxSw/s us% sys% idle%
> > iowait%
> > 2.6.24.2 1.000 22106 43709 75 24 0
> 0
> > 2.6.30-rc4 0.978 30581 43034 75 25 0
> 0
> >
> > Server configurations:
> > Intel Xeon Quad-core 2.0GHz 2 cpus/8 cores/8 threads
> > 64GB memory, 3 qle2462 FC HBA, 450 spindles (30 logical units)
> >
> >
> > ======oprofile CPU_CLK_UNHALTED for top 30 functions
> > Cycles% 2.6.24.2 Cycles% 2.6.30-rc4
> > 74.8578 <database> 67.8732 <database>
> > 1.0500 qla24xx_start_scsi 1.1162 qla24xx_start_scsi
> > 0.8089 schedule 0.9888 qla24xx_intr_handler
> > 0.5864 kmem_cache_alloc 0.8776 __schedule
> > 0.4989 __blockdev_direct_IO 0.7401 kmem_cache_alloc
> > 0.4357 __sigsetjmp 0.4914 read_hpet
> > 0.4152 copy_user_generic_string 0.4792 __sigsetjmp
> > 0.3953 qla24xx_intr_handler 0.4368 __blockdev_direct_IO
> > 0.3850 memcpy 0.3822 task_rq_lock
> > 0.3596 scsi_request_fn 0.3781 __switch_to
> > 0.3188 __switch_to 0.3620 __list_add
> > 0.2889 lock_timer_base 0.3377 rb_get_reader_page
> > 0.2750 memmove 0.3336 copy_user_generic_string
> > 0.2519 task_rq_lock 0.3195 try_to_wake_up
> > 0.2474 aio_complete 0.3114 scsi_request_fn
> > 0.2460 scsi_alloc_sgtable 0.3114 ring_buffer_consume
> > 0.2445 generic_make_request 0.2932 aio_complete
> > 0.2263 qla2x00_process_completed_re0.2730 lock_timer_base
> > 0.2118 blk_queue_end_tag 0.2588 memset_c
> > 0.2085 dio_bio_complete 0.2588 mod_timer
> > 0.2021 e1000_xmit_frame 0.2447 generic_make_request
> > 0.2006 __end_that_request_first 0.2426 qla2x00_process_completed_re
> > 0.1954 generic_file_aio_read 0.2265 tcp_sendmsg
> > 0.1949 kfree 0.2184 memmove
> > 0.1915 tcp_sendmsg 0.2184 kfree
> > 0.1901 try_to_wake_up 0.2103 scsi_device_unbusy
> > 0.1895 kref_get 0.2083 mempool_free
> > 0.1864 __mod_timer 0.1961 blk_queue_end_tag
> > 0.1863 thread_return 0.1941 kmem_cache_free
> > 0.1854 math_state_restore 0.1921 kref_get
>
> I tried to replicate the scenario. I have used Orion (a database load
> generator from Oracle) with following settings. The results do not show
> significant difference in cycles.
>
> Setup:
> Xeon Quad core (7350), 4 sockets with 16GB memory, 1 qle2462 directly
> connected to SanBlaze target with 255 luns.
>
> ORION VERSION 11.1.0.7.0
> -run advanced -testname test -num_disks 255 -num_streamIO 16 -write 100
> -type seq -matrix point -size_large 1 -num_small 0 -num_large 16 -simulate
> raid0 -cache_size 0
>
> CPU: Core 2, speed 2933.45 MHz (estimated)
> Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Clock cycles when not halted) with a unit
> mask of 0x00 (Unhalted core cycles) count 80000
> Counted L2_RQSTS events (number of L2 cache requests) with a unit mask of
> 0x41 (multiple flags) count 6000
>
> 2.6.30-rc4 2.6.24.7
> 12.4062 tg_shares_up 11.4415 tg_shares_up
> 6.6774 cache_free_debugcheck 6.3950 check_poison_obj
> 5.2861 kernel_text_address 6.1896 pick_next_task_fair
> 4.2201 kernel_map_pages 4.4998 mwait_idle
> 3.9626 __module_address 3.1111 dequeue_entity
> 3.7923 _raw_spin_lock 2.8842 mwait_idle
> 3.1965 kmem_cache_free 2.2679 find_busiest_group
> 3.1494 __module_text_address 1.7949 _raw_spin_lock
> 2.5449 find_busiest_group 1.7488 qla24xx_start_scsi
> 2.4670 mwait_idle 1.5948 find_next_bit
> 2.2321 qla24xx_start_scsi 1.5433 memset_c
> 2.1065 kernel_map_pages 1.5265 find_busiest_group
> 1.9261 is_module_text_address 1.4750 compat_blkdev_ioctl
> 1.5905 _raw_spin_lock 1.1865 _raw_spin_lock
> 1.5206 find_next_bit 1.0938 qla24xx_intr_handler
> 1.2963 cache_alloc_debugcheck_after 0.9805 cache_free_debugcheck
> 1.2785 memset.c 0.9306 kernel_map_pages
> 0.9918 __aio_put_req 0.9104 kmem_cache_free
> 0.9916 check_poison_obj 0.9085 __setscheduler
> 0.9413 qla24xx_intr_handler 0.8982 sched_rt_handler
> 0.9081 kmem_cache_alloc 0.8847 kernel_text_address
> 0.7647 cache_flusharray 0.8634 run_rebalance_domains
> 0.7213 trace_hardirqs_off 0.8041 _raw_spin_lock
> 0.6836 __change_page_attr_set_clr 0.7301 cache_alloc_debugcheck_after
> 0.6450 aio_complete 0.6905 __module_address
> 0.6365 qla2x00_process_completed_request 0.6630 kmem_cache_alloc
> 0.6330 delay_tsc 0.6240 memset_c
> 0.6248 blk_queue_end_tag 0.5501 rwbase_run_test
> 0.5568 delay_tsc 0.5146 __module_text_address
> 0.5279 trace_hardirqs_off 0.5064 apic_timer_interrupt
> 0.5215 scsi_softirq_done 0.4919 cache_free_debugcheck
>
> However, I do notice that profiling report generated is not consistent all
> the time. Not sure, if I am missing something in my setup. Sometimes, I do
> see following type of error messages popping up while running opreport.
> warning: [vdso] (tgid:30873 range:0x7fff6a9fe000-0x7fff6a9ff000) could not
> be found.
>
> I was wondering if your kernel config is quite different from mine. I have
> attached my kernel config file.
>
> Thanks,
> Anirban
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-05-06 17:57    [W:0.073 / U:3.736 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site