From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:33:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140903013317.GA26086@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw6ZkGNVX-CwyG0ybQAPjYAscdM59k_tOLtg4rr-fS-jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:20:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >
> > That looks like a partial profile, where did the page allocator, page
> > zeroing etc. go? Because the distribution among these listed symbols
> > doesn't seem all that crazy:
>
> Please argue this *after* the commit has been reverted. You guys can
> try to make the memcontrol batching actually work and scale later.
> It's not appropriate to argue against major regressions when reported
> and bisected by users.
I'll send a clean revert later.
> Showing the spinlock at the top of the profile is very much crazy
> (apparently taking 68% of all cpu time), when it's all useless
> make-believe work. I don't understand why you wouldn't call that
> crazy.
If you limit perf to a subset of symbols, it will show a relative
distribution between them, i.e: perf top --symbols kfree,memset during
some disk access:
PerfTop: 1292 irqs/sec kernel:84.4% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz cycles], (all, 4 CPUs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56.23% [kernel] [k] kfree
41.86% [kernel] [k] memset
1.91% libc-2.19.so [.] memset
kfree isn't eating 56% of "all cpu time" here, and it wasn't clear to
me whether Dave filtered symbols from only memcontrol.o, memory.o, and
mmap.o in a similar way. I'm not arguing against the regression, I'm
just trying to make sense of the numbers from the *patched* kernel.
--
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>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave@sr71.net>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@parallels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 21:33:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140903013317.GA26086@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw6ZkGNVX-CwyG0ybQAPjYAscdM59k_tOLtg4rr-fS-jg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 05:20:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org> wrote:
> >
> > That looks like a partial profile, where did the page allocator, page
> > zeroing etc. go? Because the distribution among these listed symbols
> > doesn't seem all that crazy:
>
> Please argue this *after* the commit has been reverted. You guys can
> try to make the memcontrol batching actually work and scale later.
> It's not appropriate to argue against major regressions when reported
> and bisected by users.
I'll send a clean revert later.
> Showing the spinlock at the top of the profile is very much crazy
> (apparently taking 68% of all cpu time), when it's all useless
> make-believe work. I don't understand why you wouldn't call that
> crazy.
If you limit perf to a subset of symbols, it will show a relative
distribution between them, i.e: perf top --symbols kfree,memset during
some disk access:
PerfTop: 1292 irqs/sec kernel:84.4% exact: 0.0% [4000Hz cycles], (all, 4 CPUs)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
56.23% [kernel] [k] kfree
41.86% [kernel] [k] memset
1.91% libc-2.19.so [.] memset
kfree isn't eating 56% of "all cpu time" here, and it wasn't clear to
me whether Dave filtered symbols from only memcontrol.o, memory.o, and
mmap.o in a similar way. I'm not arguing against the regression, I'm
just trying to make sense of the numbers from the *patched* kernel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-03 1:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-02 19:05 regression caused by cgroups optimization in 3.17-rc2 Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 19:05 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:18 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 20:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 14:27 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-04 14:27 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-04 20:27 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 20:27 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 22:53 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 22:53 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 9:28 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 9:25 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 14:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-05 14:47 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-05 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 15:39 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:29 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:29 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 16:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-10 16:57 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-10 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-10 17:05 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 12:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-05 12:35 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-08 15:47 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-08 15:47 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-09 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-09 14:50 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-09 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-09 18:23 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-02 22:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-02 22:18 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-02 22:36 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 0:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03 0:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03 0:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-09-03 0:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2014-09-03 1:33 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2014-09-03 1:33 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-03 3:15 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 3:15 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 0:30 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-03 0:30 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 15:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-04 15:08 ` Johannes Weiner
2014-09-04 20:50 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-04 20:50 ` Dave Hansen
2014-09-05 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2014-09-05 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
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=20140903013317.GA26086@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dave@sr71.net \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov@parallels.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.