lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [regression, 3.16-rc] rwsem: optimistic spinning causing performance degradation
From
Date
On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 11:01 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [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>

Hi Dave,

Thanks for testing. I'll update the patch with an actual changelog.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-07-04 04:21    [W:0.120 / U:29.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site