lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 04:35:01PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/13/2014 03:45 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:04:28PM -0700, Dav
> >> So, I bisected it down to this:
> >>
> >>> commit ac1bea85781e9004da9b3e8a4b097c18492d857c
> >>> Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>> Date: Sun Mar 16 21:36:25 2014 -0700
> >>>
> >>> sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() report RCU quiescent states
> >>
> >> Specifically, if I raise RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM, things get back to their
> >> 3.15 levels.
> >>
> >> Could the additional RCU quiescent states be causing us to be doing more
> >> RCU frees that we were before, and getting less benefit from the lock
> >> batching that RCU normally provides?
> >
> > Quite possibly. One way to check would be to use the debugfs files
> > rcu/*/rcugp, which give a count of grace periods since boot for each
> > RCU flavor. Here "*" is rcu_preempt for CONFIG_PREEMPT and rcu_sched
> > for !CONFIG_PREEMPT.
> >
> > Another possibility is that someone is invoking cond_reched() in an
> > incredibly tight loop.
>
> open() does at least a couple of allocations in getname(),
> get_empty_filp() and apparmor_file_alloc_security() in my kernel, and
> each of those does a cond_resched() via the might_sleep() in the slub
> code. This test is doing ~400k open/closes per second per CPU, so
> that's ~1.2M cond_resched()/sec/CPU, but that's still hundreds of ns
> between calls on average.
>
> I'll do some more ftraces and dig in to those debugfs files early next week.
>
> > But please feel free to send along your patch, CCing LKML. Longer
> > term, I probably need to take a more algorithmic approach, but what
> > you have will be useful to benchmarkers until then.
>
> With the caveat that I exerted approximately 15 seconds of brainpower to
> code it up...patch attached.

Thank you Dave! And if someone doesn't like it, they can always improve
upon it, right? ;-)

Thanx, Paul

> ---
>
> b/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c | 3 +++
> b/include/linux/rcupdate.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff -puN arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c~dirty-rcu-hack arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c~dirty-rcu-hack 2014-06-13 16:00:30.257183228 -0700
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/nmi.c 2014-06-13 16:00:30.261183407 -0700
> @@ -88,10 +88,13 @@ __setup("unknown_nmi_panic", setup_unkno
>
> static u64 nmi_longest_ns = 1 * NSEC_PER_MSEC;
>
> +u64 RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM = 256;
> static int __init nmi_warning_debugfs(void)
> {
> debugfs_create_u64("nmi_longest_ns", 0644,
> arch_debugfs_dir, &nmi_longest_ns);
> + debugfs_create_u64("RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM", 0644,
> + arch_debugfs_dir, &RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM);
> return 0;
> }
> fs_initcall(nmi_warning_debugfs);
> diff -puN include/linux/rcupdate.h~dirty-rcu-hack include/linux/rcupdate.h
> --- a/include/linux/rcupdate.h~dirty-rcu-hack 2014-06-13 16:00:35.578421426 -0700
> +++ b/include/linux/rcupdate.h 2014-06-13 16:00:49.863060683 -0700
> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ bool __rcu_is_watching(void);
> * Hooks for cond_resched() and friends to avoid RCU CPU stall warnings.
> */
>
> -#define RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM 256 /* ms vs. 100s of ms. */
> +extern u64 RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM /* ms vs. 100s of ms. */
> DECLARE_PER_CPU(int, rcu_cond_resched_count);
> void rcu_resched(void);
>
> _



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-14 04:41    [W:0.101 / U:0.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site