lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Dynamic configure max_cstate
    From
    Date
    On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 09:33 +0200, Andreas Mohr wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > > When running a fio workload, I found sometimes cpu C state has
    > > big impact on the result. Mostly, fio is a disk I/O workload
    > > which doesn't spend much time with cpu, so cpu switch to C2/C3
    > > freqently and the latency is big.
    >
    > Rather than inventing ways to limit ACPI Cx state usefulness, we should
    > perhaps be thinking of what's wrong here.
    Andreas,

    Thanks for your kind comments.

    >
    > And your complaint might just fit into a thought I had recently:
    > are we actually taking ACPI Cx exit latency into account, for timers???
    I tried both tickless kernel and non-tickless kernels. The result is similiar.

    Originally, I also thought it's related to timer. As you know, I/O block layer
    has many timers. Such timers don't expire normally. For example, an I/O request
    is submitted to driver and driver delievers it to disk and hardware triggers
    an interrupt after finishing I/O. Mostly, the I/O submit and interrupt, not
    the timer, drive the I/O.

    >
    > If we program a timer to fire at some point, then it is quite imaginable
    > that any ACPI Cx exit latency due to the CPU being idle at that moment
    > could add to actual timer trigger time significantly.
    >
    > To combat this, one would need to tweak the timer expiration time
    > to include the exit latency. But of course once the CPU is running
    > again, one would need to re-add the latency amount (read: reprogram the
    > timer hardware, ugh...) to prevent the timer from firing too early.
    >
    > Given that one would need to reprogram timer hardware quite often,
    > I don't know whether taking Cx exit latency into account is feasible.
    > OTOH analysis of the single next timer value and actual hardware reprogramming
    > would have to be done only once (in ACPI sleep and wake paths each),
    > thus it might just turn out to be very beneficial after all
    > (minus prolonging ACPI Cx path activity and thus aggravating CPU power
    > savings, of course).
    >
    > Arjan mentioned examples of maybe 10us for C2 and 185us for C3/C4 in an
    > article.
    >
    > OTOH even 185us is only 0.185ms, which, when compared to disk seek
    > latency (around 7ms still, except for SSD), doesn't seem to be all that much.
    > Or what kind of ballpark figure do you have for percentage of I/O
    > deterioration?
    I have lots of FIO sub test cases which test I/O on single disk and JBOD (a disk
    bos which mostly has 12~13 disks) on nahelam machines. Your analysis on disk seek
    is reasonable. I found sequential buffered read has the worst regression while rand
    read is far better. For example, I start 12 processes per disk and every disk has 24
    1-G files. There are 12 disks. The sequential read fio result is about 593MB/second
    with idle=poll, and about 375MB/s without idle=poll. Read block size is 4KB.

    Another exmaple is single fio direct seqential read (block size is 4K) on a single
    SATA disk. The result is about 28MB/s without idle=poll and about 32.5MB with
    idle=poll.

    How did I find C state has impact on disk I/O result? Frankly, I found a regression
    between kernel 2.6.27 and 2.6.28. Bisect located a nonstop tsc patch, but the patch
    is quite good. I found the patch changes the default clocksource from hpet to
    tsc. Then, I tried all clocksources and got the best result with acpi_pm clocksource.
    But oprofile data shows acpi_pm has more cpu utilization. clocksource jiffies has
    worst result but least cpu utilization. As you know, fio calls gettimeofday frequently.
    Then, I tried boot parameter processor.max_cstate and idle=poll.
    I get the similar result with processor.max_cstate=1 like the one with idle=poll.

    I also run the testing on 2 stoakley machines and don't find such issues.
    /proc/acpi/processor/CPUXXX/power shows stoakley cpu only has C1.

    > I'm wondering whether we might have an even bigger problem with disk I/O
    > related to this than just the raw ACPI exit latency value itself.
    We might have. I'm still doing more testing. With Venki's tool (write/read MSR registers),
    I collected some C state switch stat.

    Current cpuidle has a good consideration on cpu utilization, but doesn't have
    consideration on devices. So with I/O delivery and interrupt drive model
    with little cpu utilization, performance might be hurt if C state exit has a long
    latency.

    Yanmin


    --
    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: 2009-07-28 04:45    [W:0.090 / U:119.364 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site