From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Vernon Mauery <vernux@us.ibm.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [-RT] multiple streams have degraded performance
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 09:42:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1182325365.21117.9.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200706192038.01054.vernux@us.ibm.com>
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 20:38 -0700, Vernon Mauery wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2007 10:12:21 pm Vernon Mauery wrote:
> > In looking at the performance characteristics of my network I found that
> > 2.6.21.5-rt15 suffers from degraded thoughput with multiple threads. The
> > test that I did this with is simply invoking 1, 2, 4, and 8 instances of
> > netperf at a time and measuring the total throughput. I have two 4-way
> > machines connected with 10GbE cards. I tested several kernels (some older
> > and some newer) and found that the only thing in common was that with -RT
> > kernels the performance went down with concurrent streams.
>
> I just tested this using lo instead of the 10GbE adapter. I found similar
> results. Since this makes it reproducible by just about anybody (maybe the
> only factor now is the number of CPUs), I have attached the script that I
> test things with.
>
> So with the script run like ./stream_test 127.0.0.1 on 2.6.21 and
> 2.6.21.5-rt17 I got the following:
>
> 2.6.21
> =======================
> default: 1 streams: Send at 2790.3 Mb/s, Receive at 2790.3 Mb/s
> default: 2 streams: Send at 4129.4 Mb/s, Receive at 4128.7 Mb/s
> default: 4 streams: Send at 7949.6 Mb/s, Receive at 7735.5 Mb/s
> default: 8 streams: Send at 7930.7 Mb/s, Receive at 7910.1 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 1 streams: Send at 2810.7 Mb/s, Receive at 2810.7 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 2 streams: Send at 4093.4 Mb/s, Receive at 4092.6 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 4 streams: Send at 7887.8 Mb/s, Receive at 7880.4 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 8 streams: Send at 8091.7 Mb/s, Receive at 8082.2 Mb/s
>
> 2.6.21.5-rt17
> ======================
> default: 1 streams: Send at 938.2 Mb/s, Receive at 938.2 Mb/s
> default: 2 streams: Send at 1476.3 Mb/s, Receive at 1436.9 Mb/s
> default: 4 streams: Send at 1489.8 Mb/s, Receive at 1145.0 Mb/s
> default: 8 streams: Send at 1099.8 Mb/s, Receive at 1079.1 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 1 streams: Send at 921.4 Mb/s, Receive at 920.4 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 2 streams: Send at 1332.2 Mb/s, Receive at 1311.5 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 4 streams: Send at 1483.0 Mb/s, Receive at 1137.8 Mb/s
> 1Msock: 8 streams: Send at 1446.2 Mb/s, Receive at 1135.6 Mb/s
Unfortunately I do not have a 4-way machine, but a dual core was enough
to show the problem:
./stream_test 127.0.0.1
** default: 1 streams: Send at 268.9 Mb/s, Receive at 268.0 Mb/s
** default: 2 streams: Send at 448.7 Mb/s, Receive at 448.4 Mb/s
** default: 4 streams: Send at 438.7 Mb/s, Receive at 438.3 Mb/s
** default: 8 streams: Send at 352.7 Mb/s, Receive at 351.2 Mb/s
** 1Msock: 1 streams: Send at 207.4 Mb/s, Receive at 207.4 Mb/s
** 1Msock: 2 streams: Send at 450.0 Mb/s, Receive at 450.0 Mb/s
** 1Msock: 4 streams: Send at 444.9 Mb/s, Receive at 444.9 Mb/s
** 1Msock: 8 streams: Send at 351.4 Mb/s, Receive at 351.4 Mb/s
and lock_stat shows the following offender:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
class name contentions waittime-min waittime-max waittime-total con-bounces acquisitions holdtime-min holdtime-max holdtime-total acq-bounces
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
udp_hash_lock-W: 1 1.58 1.58 1.58 1 163 0.100 4.38 184.44 110
udp_hash_lock-R: 539603 1.30 4848.34 7756821.91 539131 15095136 0.36 520.09 20404391.93 11527348
---------------
udp_hash_lock 539603 [<ffffffff80468d63>] __udp4_lib_lookup+0x3c/0x10d
udp_hash_lock 1 [<ffffffff804686fe>] __udp_lib_get_port+0x2c/0x21a
Which makes perfect sense, in that r/w locks are degraded to regular
exclusive locks on -rt.
So I guess you're wanting to go help out with the RCU-ification of
whatever it is that this lock protects. :-)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-20 7:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-19 5:12 [-RT] multiple streams have degraded performance Vernon Mauery
2007-06-19 6:51 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-19 14:25 ` Vernon Mauery
2007-06-19 15:38 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-06-19 17:19 ` Vernon Mauery
2007-06-20 3:38 ` Vernon Mauery
2007-06-20 7:42 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1182325365.21117.9.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vernux@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.