Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Netperf UDP_STREAM regression due to not sending IPIs in ttwu_queue() | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Date | Tue, 02 Oct 2012 16:33:34 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 14:14 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 11:31:22AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 09:45 +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > Hm, 518cd623 fixed up the troubles I saw. How exactly are you running > > > > this? > > > > > > > > > > You saw problems with TCP_RR where as this is UDP_STREAM. > > > > Yeah, but I wanted to stare at UDP_STREAM as you run it to see if it > > would tell me anything about why those numbers happen. > > > > > I'm running this through MMTests with a version of the > > > configs/config-global-dhp__network-performance file that only runs > > > netperf-udp. Ultimately it runs netperf for a size something like > > > this > > > > > > SIZE=64 > > > taskset -c 0 netserver > > > taskset -c 1 netperf -t UDP_STREAM -i 50,6 -I 99,1 -l 20 -H 127.0.0.1 -- -P 15895 -s 32768 -S 32768 -m $SIZE -M $SIZE > > > > lock_stat points at the runqueue lock which makes sense as without the > IPI the rq->lock has to be taken
Well, it'll still be locked, but locally when the IPI queues the wakee.
I can confirm your UDP_STREAM findings.. but do the same cross pin with tbench, and the story reverses. A difference is that netperf/netserver utilization is 100%/63% NO_TTWU_QUEUE and 100%/57% TTWU_QUEUE, ie netserver is using more cycles with NO_TTWU_QUEUE.
tbench/tbench_srv is around 73%/56%, both sleep vs 1, both take the same locks in ttwu().. and perform better with NO_TTWU_QUEUE.
Ponder ponder speculate.. what won't happen with TTWU_QUEUE is you won't contend on the remote lock while a task is trying to schedule off. We don't content with tbench or TCP_RR, NO_TTWU_QUEUE is the cheaper.. we do contend with UDP_STREAM, TTWU_QUEUE _becomes_ the cheaper. Oh dear.
> 3.3.0-vanilla > class name con-bounces contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total acq-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > &rq->lock: 37062 37063 0.08 10.43 11037.66 410701252 1029063029 0.00 14.35 234556106.12 > --------- > &rq->lock 14064 [<ffffffff81420a76>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710 > &rq->lock 33 [<ffffffff8107791d>] idle_balance+0x13d/0x190 > &rq->lock 11810 [<ffffffff8106cac7>] ttwu_queue+0x47/0xf0 > &rq->lock 283 [<ffffffff81067f86>] task_rq_lock+0x56/0xa0 > --------- > &rq->lock 22305 [<ffffffff8106cac7>] ttwu_queue+0x47/0xf0 > &rq->lock 11260 [<ffffffff81420a76>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710 > &rq->lock 158 [<ffffffff8107791d>] idle_balance+0x13d/0x190 > &rq->lock 8 [<ffffffff810772a6>] load_balance+0x356/0x500 > > 3.3.0-revert > &rq->lock: 10831 10833 0.09 10.47 4448.19 87877 768253556 0.00 16.00 140103672.33 > --------- > &rq->lock 685 [<ffffffff810771d8>] load_balance+0x348/0x500 > &rq->lock 8688 [<ffffffff8106d045>] try_to_wake_up+0x215/0x2e0 > &rq->lock 1010 [<ffffffff814209b6>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710 > &rq->lock 228 [<ffffffff81067f86>] task_rq_lock+0x56/0xa0 > --------- > &rq->lock 3317 [<ffffffff814209b6>] __schedule+0xc6/0x710 > &rq->lock 789 [<ffffffff810771d8>] load_balance+0x348/0x500 > &rq->lock 363 [<ffffffff810770a4>] load_balance+0x214/0x500 > &rq->lock 2 [<ffffffff810771e6>] load_balance+0x356/0x500 > > Note the difference in acq-bounces. I had to stop at this point and move > back to some CMA breakage I introduced. >
| |