Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression | From | Xing Zhengjun <> | Date | Wed, 25 Sep 2019 17:00:03 +0800 |
| |
On 8/30/2019 8:43 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: > > > On 8/7/2019 3:56 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >> >> >> On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >>>> Hi Trond, >>>> >>>> I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for >>>> analyzing the issue. >>> >>> Ping... >> >> ping... >> > ping...
ping...
>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In testcase: fsmark >>>> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ >>>> 3.00GHz with 384G memory >>>> with following parameters: >>>> >>>> iterations: 20x >>>> nr_threads: 64t >>>> disk: 1BRD_48G >>>> fs: xfs >>>> fs2: nfsv4 >>>> filesize: 4M >>>> test_size: 80G >>>> sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose >>>> cpufreq_governor: performance >>>> >>>> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test >>>> synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload. >>>> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/ >>>> >>>> commit: >>>> e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()") >>>> 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use >>>> iov_iter()") >>>> >>>> e791f8e9380d945e 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291 >>>> ---------------- --------------------------- >>>> %stddev %change %stddev >>>> \ | \ >>>> 527.29 -22.6% 407.96 fsmark.files_per_sec >>>> 1.97 ± 11% +0.9 2.88 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.smp_apic_timer_interrupt.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry >>>> >>>> 0.00 +0.9 0.93 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_write_xmit.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages >>>> >>>> 2.11 ± 10% +0.9 3.05 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary >>>> >>>> 5.29 ± 2% +1.2 6.46 ± 7% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.svc_recv.nfsd.kthread.ret_from_fork >>>> 9.61 ± 5% +3.1 12.70 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >>>> 9.27 ± 5% +3.1 12.40 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >>>> >>>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork >>>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork >>>> 0.00 +3.4 3.41 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg >>>> >>>> 0.00 +3.4 3.44 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg >>>> >>>> 0.00 +3.5 3.54 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages >>>> >>>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread >>>> >>>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >>>> >>>> 1.81 ± 4% +3.8 5.59 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread >>>> >>>> 1.80 ± 3% +3.8 5.59 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work >>>> >>>> 1.73 ± 4% +3.8 5.54 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule >>>> >>>> 1.72 ± 4% +3.8 5.54 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute >>>> >>>> 0.00 +5.4 5.42 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request >>>> >>>> 0.00 +5.5 5.52 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit >>>> >>>> 0.00 +5.5 5.53 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit >>>> >>>> 9.61 ± 5% +3.1 12.70 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.worker_thread >>>> 9.27 ± 5% +3.1 12.40 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.process_one_work >>>> 6.19 +3.2 9.40 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms >>>> 34.53 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork >>>> 34.52 ± 4% +3.3 37.78 ± 2% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kthread >>>> 0.00 +3.5 3.46 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page >>>> 0.00 +3.6 3.56 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full >>>> 2.47 ± 4% +3.7 6.18 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute >>>> 2.30 ± 5% +3.7 6.02 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule >>>> 1.90 ± 4% +3.8 5.67 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.call_transmit >>>> 1.89 ± 3% +3.8 5.66 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit >>>> 1.82 ± 4% +3.8 5.62 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request >>>> 1.81 ± 4% +3.8 5.62 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages >>>> 0.21 ± 17% +5.3 5.48 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked >>>> 0.25 ± 18% +5.3 5.59 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg >>>> 0.26 ± 16% +5.3 5.60 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg >>>> 1.19 ± 5% +0.5 1.68 ± 3% >>>> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_page_from_freelist >>>> 6.10 +3.2 9.27 ± 4% >>>> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7/9/2019 10:39 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >>>>> Hi Trond, >>>>> >>>>> On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>>>> I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. >>>>>> As far as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be >>>>>> entirely contained in the NUMA section of your results. >>>>>> IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead due to NUMA. I've >>>>>> been asking whether or not that is a correct interpretation of the >>>>>> numbers you published. >>>>> Thanks for your feedback. I used the same hardware and the same >>>>> test parameters to test the two commits: >>>>> e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use >>>>> iov_iter_kvec()") >>>>> 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use >>>>> iov_iter()") >>>>> >>>>> If it is caused by NUMA, why only commit 0472e47660 throughput is >>>>> decreased? The filesystem we test is NFS, commit 0472e47660 is >>>>> related with the network, could you help to check if have any other >>>>> clues for the regression. Thanks. >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
-- Zhengjun Xing
| |