From: Chegu Vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aquini@redhat.com,
walken@google.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, lwoodman@redhat.com,
jeremy@goop.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
knoel@redhat.com, raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
mingo@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:24:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50EF3FAF.7070803@hp.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130108172632.1126898a@annuminas.surriel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 976 bytes --]
On 1/8/2013 2:26 PM, Rik van Riel wrote:
<...>
> Performance is within the margin of error of v2, so the graph
> has not been update.
>
> Please let me know if you manage to break this code in any way,
> so I can fix it...
>
Attached below is some preliminary data with one of the AIM7 micro-benchmark
workloads (i.e. high_systime). This is a kernel intensive workload which
does tons of forks/execs etc.and stresses quite a few of the same set
of spinlocks and semaphores.
Observed a drop in performance as we go to 40way and 80 way. Wondering
if the back off keeps increasing to such an extent that it actually starts
to hurt given the nature of this workload ? Also in the case of 80way
observed quite a bit of variation from run to run...
Also ran it inside a single KVM guest. There were some perf. dips but
interestingly didn't observe the same level of drop (compared to the
drop in the native case) as the guest size was scaled up to 40vcpu or
80vcpu.
FYI
Vinod
[-- Attachment #2: aim7_rik --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 2333 bytes --]
---
Platform : 8 socket (80 Core) Westmere with 1TB RAM.
Workload: AIM7-highsystime microbenchmark - 2000 users & 100 jobs per user.
Values reported are Jobs Per Minute (Higher is better). The values
are average of 3 runs.
1) Native run:
--------------
Config 1: 3.7 kernel
Config 2: 3.7 + Rik's 1-4 patches
------------------------------------------------------------
20way 40way 80way
------------------------------------------------------------
Config 1 ~179K ~159K ~146K
------------------------------------------------------------
Config 2 ~180K ~134K ~21K-43K <- high variation!
------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Used numactl to restrict workload to
2 sockets (20way) and 4 sockets(40way))
------
2) KVM run :
------------
Single guest of different sizes (No over commit, NUMA enabled in the guest).
Note: This kernel intensive micro benchmark is exposes the PLE handler issue
esp. for large guests. Since Raghu's PLE changes are not yet in upstream
'have just run with current PLE handler & then by disabling
PLE (ple_gap=0).
Config 1 : Host & Guest at 3.7
Config 2 : Host & Guest are at 3.7 + Rik's 1-4 patches
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
20vcpu/128G 40vcpu/256G 80vcpu/512G
(on 2 sockets) (on 4 sockets) (on 8 sockets)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config 1 ~144K ~39K ~10K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config 2 ~143K ~37.5K ~11K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config 3 : Host & Guest at 3.7 AND ple_gap=0
Config 4 : Host & Guest are at 3.7 + Rik's 1-4 patches AND ple_gap=0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config 3 ~154K ~131K ~116K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Config 4 ~151K ~130K ~115K
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Note: Used numactl to restrict qemu to
2 sockets (20way) and 4 sockets(40way))
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-10 22:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-08 22:26 [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:30 ` [PATCH 3/5] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 3:13 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 12:49 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-08 22:31 ` [PATCH 4/5] x86,smp: keep spinlock delay values per hashed spinlock address Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 3:14 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 13:01 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-10 13:05 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 13:15 ` Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [DEBUG PATCH 5/5] x86,smp: add debugging code to track spinlock delay value Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [PATCH 2/5] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:50 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-08 22:54 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 2:30 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-08 22:32 ` [PATCH 1/5] x86,smp: move waiting on contended ticket lock out of line Rik van Riel
2013-01-08 22:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-10 17:38 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-09 12:50 ` [PATCH 0/5] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Raghavendra K T
2013-01-10 2:27 ` Rafael Aquini
2013-01-10 17:36 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-11 20:11 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-13 18:07 ` Raghavendra K T
2013-01-10 15:19 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-10 15:31 ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-10 19:30 ` Mike Galbraith
2013-01-24 13:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-01-10 22:24 ` Chegu Vinod [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=50EF3FAF.7070803@hp.com \
--to=chegu_vinod@hp.com \
--cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
--cc=aquini@redhat.com \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=knoel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=walken@google.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.