lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [regression, 3.16-rc] rwsem: optimistic spinning causing performance degradation
[re-added lkml]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:50:20AM -0700, Jason Low wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > This is what the kernel profile looks like on the strided run:
> >
> > - 83.06% [kernel] [k] osq_lock
> > - osq_lock
> > - 100.00% rwsem_down_write_failed
> > - call_rwsem_down_write_failed
> > - 99.55% sys_mprotect
> > tracesys
> > __GI___mprotect
> > - 12.02% [kernel] [k] rwsem_down_write_failed
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> So with no sign of rwsem_spin_on_owner(), yet with such heavy contention in
> osq_lock, this makes me wonder if it's spending most of its time spinning
> on !owner while a reader has the lock? (We don't set sem->owner for the readers.)
>
> If that's an issue, maybe the below is worth a test, in which we'll just
> avoid spinning if rwsem_can_spin_on_owner() finds that there is no owner.
> If we just had to enter the slowpath yet there is no owner, we'll be conservative
> and assume readers have the lock.

That makes it quite a bit faster:

XFS_REPAIR Summary Fri Jul 4 10:39:32 2014

Phase Start End Duration
Phase 1: 07/04 10:38:04 07/04 10:38:05 1 second
Phase 2: 07/04 10:38:05 07/04 10:38:08 3 seconds
Phase 3: 07/04 10:38:08 07/04 10:39:12 1 minute, 4 seconds
Phase 4: 07/04 10:39:12 07/04 10:39:21 9 seconds
Phase 5: 07/04 10:39:21 07/04 10:39:22 1 second
Phase 6: 07/04 10:39:22 07/04 10:39:30 8 seconds
Phase 7: 07/04 10:39:30 07/04 10:39:30

Total run time: 1 minute, 26 seconds
done

real 1m28.504s
user 1m23.990s
sys 3m20.132s

So system time goes down massively, and speed comes up to within 30%
of the single AG run. But it's still 2-3000 IOPS down, but it's
acceptible for the moment.

FWIW, the kernel profile ifor the multi-AG run now looks like:

29.64% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- _raw_spin_unlock_irq
+ 35.34% __schedule
- 34.15% call_rwsem_down_write_failed
+ 99.27% sys_mprotect
- 30.02% call_rwsem_down_read_failed
95.59% __do_page_fault
- 24.65% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- 69.38% rwsem_wake
- call_rwsem_wake
- 83.32% sys_mprotect
+ 15.54% __do_page_fault
+ 22.55% try_to_wake_up
+ 9.77% [kernel] [k] default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys
- 3.21% [kernel] [k] smp_call_function_many
- smp_call_function_many
- 99.22% flush_tlb_page
+ 2.51% [kernel] [k] rwsem_down_write_failed

It's much more like the 3.15 profile - it's only wasting half the
CPU spinning on the internal spinlock and it's now going fast enough
to be blowing another 10-12% of the CPU time sending tlb flushes to
other CPUs....

One thing I did notice, even with the single-AG-at-a-time run, is
that the system time is *significantly* reduced with this patch,
even though it doesn't change performance.

ie unpatched:

unpatched patched
runtime 0m58s 1m2s
systime 4m55s 1m1s

So not spinning when there are read holders is a major win even
when there are few threads contending on read/write.

FWIW, the rwsems in the struct xfs_inode are often heavily
read/write contended, so there are lots of IO related workloads that
are going to regress on XFS without this optimisation...

Anyway, consider the patch:

Tested-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-04 03:41    [W:0.091 / U:9.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site