From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [numa shrinker] 9b17c62382: -36.6% regression on sparse file copy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:18:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140115001827.GO3469@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140109025715.GA11984@localhost>
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:57:15AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> As you suggested, I added tests for ext4 and btrfs, the results are
> the same.
>
> Then I tried running perf record for 10 seconds starting from 200s.
> (The test runs for 410s). I see several warning messages and hope
> they do not impact the accuracy too much:
>
> [ 252.608069] perf samples too long (2532 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
> [ 252.608863] perf samples too long (2507 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 25000
> [ 252.609422] INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 1.389 msecs
>
> Anyway the noticeable perf change are:
>
> 1d3d4437eae1bb2 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989
> --------------- -------------------------
> 12.15 ~10% +209.8% 37.63 ~ 2% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-btrfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 12.88 ~16% +189.4% 37.27 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-ext4-lru-file-readtwice
> 15.24 ~ 9% +146.0% 37.50 ~ 1% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-xfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 40.27 +179.1% 112.40 TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.grab_super_passive.super_cache_count.shrink_slab.do_try_to_free_pages
>
> 1d3d4437eae1bb2 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989
> --------------- -------------------------
> 11.91 ~12% +218.2% 37.89 ~ 2% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-btrfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 12.47 ~16% +200.3% 37.44 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-ext4-lru-file-readtwice
> 15.36 ~11% +145.4% 37.68 ~ 1% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-xfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 39.73 +184.5% 113.01 TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.put_super.drop_super.super_cache_count.shrink_slab
>
> perf report for 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989:
>
> # Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> # ........ ............... .................. ..............................................
> #
> 77.74% dd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> |
> --- _raw_spin_lock
> |
> |--47.65%-- grab_super_passive
Oh, it's superblock lock contention, probably caused by an increase
in shrinker calls (i.e. per-node rather than global). I think we've
seen this before - can you try the two patches from Tim Chen here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/6/353
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/6/356
If they fix the problem, I'll get them into 3.14 and pushed back to
the relevant stable kernels.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [numa shrinker] 9b17c62382: -36.6% regression on sparse file copy
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:18:27 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140115001827.GO3469@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140109025715.GA11984@localhost>
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:57:15AM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> As you suggested, I added tests for ext4 and btrfs, the results are
> the same.
>
> Then I tried running perf record for 10 seconds starting from 200s.
> (The test runs for 410s). I see several warning messages and hope
> they do not impact the accuracy too much:
>
> [ 252.608069] perf samples too long (2532 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 50000
> [ 252.608863] perf samples too long (2507 > 2500), lowering kernel.perf_event_max_sample_rate to 25000
> [ 252.609422] INFO: NMI handler (perf_event_nmi_handler) took too long to run: 1.389 msecs
>
> Anyway the noticeable perf change are:
>
> 1d3d4437eae1bb2 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989
> --------------- -------------------------
> 12.15 ~10% +209.8% 37.63 ~ 2% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-btrfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 12.88 ~16% +189.4% 37.27 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-ext4-lru-file-readtwice
> 15.24 ~ 9% +146.0% 37.50 ~ 1% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-xfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 40.27 +179.1% 112.40 TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.grab_super_passive.super_cache_count.shrink_slab.do_try_to_free_pages
>
> 1d3d4437eae1bb2 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989
> --------------- -------------------------
> 11.91 ~12% +218.2% 37.89 ~ 2% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-btrfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 12.47 ~16% +200.3% 37.44 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-ext4-lru-file-readtwice
> 15.36 ~11% +145.4% 37.68 ~ 1% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-xfs-lru-file-readtwice
> 39.73 +184.5% 113.01 TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles._raw_spin_lock.put_super.drop_super.super_cache_count.shrink_slab
>
> perf report for 9b17c62382dd2e7507984b989:
>
> # Overhead Command Shared Object Symbol
> # ........ ............... .................. ..............................................
> #
> 77.74% dd [kernel.kallsyms] [k] _raw_spin_lock
> |
> --- _raw_spin_lock
> |
> |--47.65%-- grab_super_passive
Oh, it's superblock lock contention, probably caused by an increase
in shrinker calls (i.e. per-node rather than global). I think we've
seen this before - can you try the two patches from Tim Chen here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/6/353
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/6/356
If they fix the problem, I'll get them into 3.14 and pushed back to
the relevant stable kernels.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-15 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-06 8:20 [numa shrinker] 9b17c62382: -36.6% regression on sparse file copy fengguang.wu
2014-01-06 8:20 ` fengguang.wu
2014-01-06 13:10 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-06 13:10 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-08 11:14 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-08 11:14 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-09 2:57 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-15 0:18 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2014-01-15 0:18 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-27 12:09 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-27 12:09 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-28 19:03 ` Tim Chen
2014-01-28 19:03 ` Tim Chen
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=20140115001827.GO3469@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@linux.intel.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.