All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 998ef75ddb and aio-dio-invalidate-failure w/ data=journal
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 09:23:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5612A3F3.2040609@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzARo_ZtbO6PDxgenWQtEEbynBCWFWCwVJT2NbXmJOd9Q@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/05/2015 08:58 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
> Dave, mind sharing the micro-benchmark or perhaps even just a kernel
> profile of it? How is that "iov_iter_fault_in_readable()" so
> noticeable? It really shouldn't be a big deal.

The micro was just plugging this test:

	https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/write1byte.c

In to will-it-scale:

	https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale

iov_iter_fault_in_readable() shows up as the third-most expensive kernel
function in a profile:

>      7.45%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string 
>      6.51%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] unlock_page                    
>      6.04%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] iov_iter_fault_in_readable     
>      5.23%  write1byte_proc  libc-2.20.so          [.] __GI___libc_write              
>      4.86%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] entry_SYSCALL_64               
>      4.48%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic 
>      3.94%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] generic_perform_write          
>      3.74%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] mutex_lock                     
>      3.59%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs  
>      3.55%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] find_get_entry                 
>      3.53%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] vfs_write                      
>      3.17%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] find_lock_entry                
>      3.17%  write1byte_proc  [kernel.kallsyms]     [k] put_page                       

The disassembly points at the stac/clac pair being the culprits inside
the function (copy/paste from 'perf top' disassebly here):

...
>        │      stac
>  24.57 │      mov    (%rcx),%sil
>  15.70 │      clac
>  28.77 │      test   %eax,%eax
>   2.15 │      mov    %sil,-0x1(%rbp)
>   8.93 │    ↓ jne    66
>   2.31 │      movslq %edx,%rdx

One thing I've been noticing on Skylake is that barriers (implicit and
explicit) are showing up more in profiles.  What we're seeing here
probably isn't actually stac/clac overhead, but the cost of finishing
some other operations that are outstanding before we can proceed through
here.

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-05 16:23 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-05 15:22 [REGRESSION] 998ef75ddb and aio-dio-invalidate-failure w/ data=journal Theodore Ts'o
2015-10-05 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 16:23   ` Dave Hansen [this message]
2015-10-05 20:22     ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 20:48       ` Dave Hansen
2015-10-05 21:18         ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 21:55           ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 23:33             ` Dave Hansen
2015-10-06  9:01               ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-05 20:49       ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-10-06  7:56         ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-06  9:10           ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06  9:27             ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-06 13:29               ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-06 13:42                 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-10-05 16:03 ` Dave Hansen
2015-10-05 18:04 ` Dave Hansen
2015-10-07  3:34   ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-10-07  7:32     ` Linus Torvalds
2015-10-07 15:43       ` Theodore Ts'o
2015-10-09  4:01         ` [PATCH] ext4: use private version of page_zero_new_buffers() for data=journal mode Theodore Ts'o
2015-10-13  6:06           ` Leonid V. Fedorenchik
2015-10-15 11:17           ` Jan Kara
2025-01-26 17:01           ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-26 18:48             ` Linus Torvalds
2025-01-26 19:49               ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-26 22:03                 ` Linus Torvalds
2025-01-26 22:45                   ` Mateusz Guzik
2025-01-27 20:52                     ` Dave Hansen
2025-01-27 21:46                       ` Dave Chinner

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=5612A3F3.2040609@linux.intel.com \
    --to=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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.