From: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@suse.de>
To: RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: jitter test scalability problem - my theory
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:31:09 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1311949869.30862.45.camel@marge.simson.net> (raw)
Greetings,
2.6.33.15-rt31 on a 64 core DL980, running a jitter test proggy that
fires up an executive (a model thereof actually) on 56 isolated cores,
which in turn fires up 3 or 4 workers in descending priority. All tasks
are pinned. Box booted isolcpus=8-63. Jitter test runs on these, 0-7
handle everything else, including interrupts.
Test proggy is looking to achieve a max jitter of +-30us, and that goal
is met.. until I increase the load to > 32 isolated cores.
Profiling, my kernel overhead is mostly (surprise) locks, but it seems
my scalability issue may be coming from...
static void
inc_rt_prio_smp(struct rt_rq *rt_rq, int prio, int prev_prio)
{
...
if (rq->online)
cpupri_set(&rq->rd->cpupri, rq->cpu, prio);
void cpupri_set(struct cpupri *cp, int cpu, int newpri)
{
...
if (likely(newpri != CPUPRI_INVALID)) {
struct cpupri_vec *vec = &cp->pri_to_cpu[newpri];
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&vec->lock, flags); <== here
So it seems push/pull logic _may_ be my scalability problem. Even
though there's nothing that can be pushed/pulled, it's hammering a few
locks from many cores, so cores perturb each other enough despite
isolation, to fail once enough cores are active.
Does that look like a reasonable explanation for my jitter increase?
I'm going to hack up a test for my wild theory, but since I don't have a
lot of experience hunting jitter sources, looking for a few lousy usecs,
it couldn't hurt to ask whether I'm barking up the wrong tree or not :)
(in previous run, _raw_spin_lock_irqsave() was > 60% of kernel
overhead, this is just the last run I did)
# dso: [kernel.kallsyms]
# Events: 214K cycles
#
# Overhead Symbol
# ........ ...................................
#
29.53% [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave
|
|--61.57%-- cpupri_set
| |
| |--81.55%-- dequeue_rt_stack
| | dequeue_task_rt
| | dequeue_task
| | |
| | |--100.00%-- deactivate_task
| | | __schedule
| | | schedule
| | | |
| | | |--69.94%-- run_ksoftirqd
| | | | kthread
| | | | kernel_thread_helper
| | | |
| | | |--15.23%-- sys_semtimedop
| | | | sys_semop
| | | | system_call_fastpath
| | | | |
| | | | |--4.11%-- 0x7f54c025ae37
| | | | | __semop
next reply other threads:[~2011-07-29 14:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-29 14:31 Mike Galbraith [this message]
2011-07-29 14:35 ` jitter test scalability problem - my theory Peter Zijlstra
2011-07-29 14:47 ` Mike Galbraith
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=1311949869.30862.45.camel@marge.simson.net \
--to=mgalbraith@suse.de \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
/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.