[RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Atsushi Kumagai]

Hello,

This is the makedumpfile version 1.5.1-rc.
Your comments/patches are welcome.

  http://makedumpfile.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=makedumpfile/makedumpfile;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v1.5.1-rc

If there is no problem, I will release v1.5.1 GA on Nov 28.


Main new feature:
o Support for snappy compression
  This feature allows you to compress dump data by each page using snappy.
  This feature is optional, the user has to prepare snappy library and
  build binary with USESNAPPY=on to use it. 

o Support for eppic language
  This feature allows you to scrub data in a dumpfile with eppic macro.
  Eppic macro can specify more flexible rules for scrubbing than the original
  rules specified with --config option.
  This feature is optional, the user has to prepare eppic (and tinfo) library 
  and build binary with EPPIC=on to use it. 

o Introduce mem_map array logic
  This is the new logic of excluding free pages. This logic excludes free 
  pages by looking up mem_map array instead of free lists, be expected
  good performance for cyclic mode.
  This feature requires the values below but vmcore doesn't include them,
  so the user has to prepare vmlinux or vmcoreinfo which includes them. 
  When running on cyclic mode and the required values exist, mem_map array
  logic is used. Otherwise, free list logic is used.
  
    - OFFSET(page._mapcount)
    - OFFSET(page.private)
    - SIZE(pageflags)
    - NUMBER(PG_buddy)
    - NUMBER(PG_slab)
    - NUMBER(PAGE_BUDDY_MAPCOUNT_VALUE)

  Additionally, I will post the patch to add the values above to the upstream
  kernel, so vmlinux and vmcoreinfo will be unnecessary for this feature soon.


Changelog:
o New feature
   Commits related to "Support for Xen4"
    - [PATCH v3 1/9] Make max_pfn symbol optional for Xen dumps. (by Petr Tesarik) 3823577
    - [PATCH v3 2/9] Xen: Fix the offset of the _domain field in struct page_info. 
      (by Petr Tesarik) 6f0e831
    - [PATCH v3 3/9] Read the Xen crash ELF note into memory at startup. (by Petr Tesarik) 4e11405
    - [PATCH v3 4/9] Split Xen setup into early and late. (by Petr Tesarik) e8295d2
    - [PATCH v3 5/9] Initialize phys_start during early Xen setup. (by Petr Tesarik) 064fbc1
    - [PATCH v3 6/9] Fix domain pickled_id computation for xen-3.4+. (by Petr Tesarik) 3ae13b4
    - [PATCH v3 7/9] Support Xen4 virtuall address space layout. (by Petr Tesarik) 51ea90a
    - [PATCH v3 8/9] Add support for filtering out user pages under Xen4. (by Petr Tesarik) fccad16
    - [PATCH v3 9/9] Do not fail for symbols removed in Xen4. (by Petr Tesarik) 9151172
    - [PATCH] Initialize Xen structures from initial(). (by Petr Tesarik) 56a388e

   Commits related to "Support for snappy compression"
    - [PATCH 1/9] Add dump header for snappy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 5634487
    - [PATCH 2/9] Add command-line processing for snappy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 8c69b49
    - [PATCH 3/9] Add snappy build support. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) c9a24d0
    - [PATCH 4/9] Notify snappy unsupporting when disabled. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) d075b7f
    - [PATCH 5/9] Add compression processing. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 604aacc
    - [PATCH 6/9] Add uncompression processing. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 746d5f2
    - [PATCH 7/9] Add help message. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 550c19c
    - [PATCH 8/9] Add manual description. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) ba3ee46
    - [PATCH 9/9] Add README description. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 0626577

   Commits related to "Support for eppic language"
    - [PATCH v2 1/7] Initialize and setup eppic. (by Aravinda Prasad) 5a9be3f
    - [PATCH v2 2/7] makedumpfile and eppic interface layer. (by Aravinda Prasad) da46854
    - [PATCH v2 3/7] Eppic call back functions to query a dump image. (by Aravinda Prasad) 3808381
    - [PATCH v2 4/7] Implement apigetctype call back function. (by Aravinda Prasad) 213cc99
    - [PATCH v2 5/7] Implement apimember and apigetrtype call back functions. 
      (by Aravinda Prasad) 424a241
    - [PATCH v2 6/7] Extend eppic built-in functions to include memset function. 
      (by Aravinda Prasad) 587d8a3
    - [PATCH v2 7/7] Support fully typed symbol access mode. (by Aravinda Prasad) 4f3e0da

   Commits related to "mem_map array logic"
    - [PATCH v2 01/10] Move page flags setup for old kernels after debuginfo initialization. 
      (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) ed3fe07
    - [PATCH v2 02/10] Add debuginfo interface for enum type size. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) e308a72
    - [PATCH v2 03/10] Add new parameters to various tables. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 0ba57be
    - [PATCH v2 04/10] Add debuginfo-related processing for VMCOREINFO/VMLINUX.
      (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) b1f49d6
    - [PATCH v2 05/10] Add hardcoded page flag values. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) d2f87bc
    - [PATCH v2 06/10] Exclude free pages by looking up mem_map array. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 8f74a27
    - [PATCH v2 07/10] Add page_is_buddy for recent kernels. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a0a9fa7
    - [PATCH v2 08/10] Add page_is_buddy for PG_buddy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a2f411c
    - [PATCH v2 09/10] Add page_is_buddy for old kernels. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) db3553a
    - [PATCH v2 10/10] Warn cyclic buffer overrun and correct it if possible.
      (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a0b9d84

   Other commit
    - [PATCH] Support for x86_64 1G pages. (by Petr Tesarik) 7b10a11
    - [PATCH] Change dwarf analyzer to search also into named containers. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 1f31b6a
    - [PATCH] s390x: Add 2GB frame support for page table walker. (by Michael Holzheu) f6ab608
    - [PATCH v2 1/2] Add get_free_memory_size() to get the amount of free memory.
      (by Atsushi Kumagai) 8dd4a17
    - [PATCH v2 2/2] Calculate the size of cyclic buffer automatically. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 01db605

o Bugfix
    - [PATCH] add a missing return statement. (by Petr Tesarik) f6134c7


Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 08:15 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This is the makedumpfile version 1.5.1-rc.
> Your comments/patches are welcome.
> 
>   http://makedumpfile.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=makedumpfile/makedumpfile;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/v1.5.1-rc
> 
> If there is no problem, I will release v1.5.1 GA on Nov 28.
> 
> 
> Main new feature:
> o Support for snappy compression
>   This feature allows you to compress dump data by each page using snappy.
>   This feature is optional, the user has to prepare snappy library and
>   build binary with USESNAPPY=on to use it. 
> 
> o Support for eppic language
>   This feature allows you to scrub data in a dumpfile with eppic macro.
>   Eppic macro can specify more flexible rules for scrubbing than the original
>   rules specified with --config option.
>   This feature is optional, the user has to prepare eppic (and tinfo) library 
>   and build binary with EPPIC=on to use it. 
> 
> o Introduce mem_map array logic
>   This is the new logic of excluding free pages. This logic excludes free 
>   pages by looking up mem_map array instead of free lists, be expected
>   good performance for cyclic mode.
>   This feature requires the values below but vmcore doesn't include them,
>   so the user has to prepare vmlinux or vmcoreinfo which includes them. 
>   When running on cyclic mode and the required values exist, mem_map array
>   logic is used. Otherwise, free list logic is used.
>   
>     - OFFSET(page._mapcount)
>     - OFFSET(page.private)
>     - SIZE(pageflags)
>     - NUMBER(PG_buddy)
>     - NUMBER(PG_slab)
>     - NUMBER(PAGE_BUDDY_MAPCOUNT_VALUE)
> 
>   Additionally, I will post the patch to add the values above to the upstream
>   kernel, so vmlinux and vmcoreinfo will be unnecessary for this feature soon.
> 
> 
> Changelog:
> o New feature
>    Commits related to "Support for Xen4"
>     - [PATCH v3 1/9] Make max_pfn symbol optional for Xen dumps. (by Petr Tesarik) 3823577
>     - [PATCH v3 2/9] Xen: Fix the offset of the _domain field in struct page_info. 
>       (by Petr Tesarik) 6f0e831
>     - [PATCH v3 3/9] Read the Xen crash ELF note into memory at startup. (by Petr Tesarik) 4e11405
>     - [PATCH v3 4/9] Split Xen setup into early and late. (by Petr Tesarik) e8295d2
>     - [PATCH v3 5/9] Initialize phys_start during early Xen setup. (by Petr Tesarik) 064fbc1
>     - [PATCH v3 6/9] Fix domain pickled_id computation for xen-3.4+. (by Petr Tesarik) 3ae13b4
>     - [PATCH v3 7/9] Support Xen4 virtuall address space layout. (by Petr Tesarik) 51ea90a
>     - [PATCH v3 8/9] Add support for filtering out user pages under Xen4. (by Petr Tesarik) fccad16
>     - [PATCH v3 9/9] Do not fail for symbols removed in Xen4. (by Petr Tesarik) 9151172
>     - [PATCH] Initialize Xen structures from initial(). (by Petr Tesarik) 56a388e
> 
>    Commits related to "Support for snappy compression"
>     - [PATCH 1/9] Add dump header for snappy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 5634487
>     - [PATCH 2/9] Add command-line processing for snappy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 8c69b49
>     - [PATCH 3/9] Add snappy build support. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) c9a24d0
>     - [PATCH 4/9] Notify snappy unsupporting when disabled. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) d075b7f
>     - [PATCH 5/9] Add compression processing. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 604aacc
>     - [PATCH 6/9] Add uncompression processing. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 746d5f2
>     - [PATCH 7/9] Add help message. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 550c19c
>     - [PATCH 8/9] Add manual description. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) ba3ee46
>     - [PATCH 9/9] Add README description. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 0626577
> 
>    Commits related to "Support for eppic language"
>     - [PATCH v2 1/7] Initialize and setup eppic. (by Aravinda Prasad) 5a9be3f
>     - [PATCH v2 2/7] makedumpfile and eppic interface layer. (by Aravinda Prasad) da46854
>     - [PATCH v2 3/7] Eppic call back functions to query a dump image. (by Aravinda Prasad) 3808381
>     - [PATCH v2 4/7] Implement apigetctype call back function. (by Aravinda Prasad) 213cc99
>     - [PATCH v2 5/7] Implement apimember and apigetrtype call back functions. 
>       (by Aravinda Prasad) 424a241
>     - [PATCH v2 6/7] Extend eppic built-in functions to include memset function. 
>       (by Aravinda Prasad) 587d8a3
>     - [PATCH v2 7/7] Support fully typed symbol access mode. (by Aravinda Prasad) 4f3e0da
> 
>    Commits related to "mem_map array logic"
>     - [PATCH v2 01/10] Move page flags setup for old kernels after debuginfo initialization. 
>       (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) ed3fe07
>     - [PATCH v2 02/10] Add debuginfo interface for enum type size. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) e308a72
>     - [PATCH v2 03/10] Add new parameters to various tables. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 0ba57be
>     - [PATCH v2 04/10] Add debuginfo-related processing for VMCOREINFO/VMLINUX.
>       (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) b1f49d6
>     - [PATCH v2 05/10] Add hardcoded page flag values. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) d2f87bc
>     - [PATCH v2 06/10] Exclude free pages by looking up mem_map array. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) 8f74a27
>     - [PATCH v2 07/10] Add page_is_buddy for recent kernels. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a0a9fa7
>     - [PATCH v2 08/10] Add page_is_buddy for PG_buddy. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a2f411c
>     - [PATCH v2 09/10] Add page_is_buddy for old kernels. (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) db3553a
>     - [PATCH v2 10/10] Warn cyclic buffer overrun and correct it if possible.
>       (by HATAYAMA Daisuke) a0b9d84
> 
>    Other commit
>     - [PATCH] Support for x86_64 1G pages. (by Petr Tesarik) 7b10a11
>     - [PATCH] Change dwarf analyzer to search also into named containers. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 1f31b6a
>     - [PATCH] s390x: Add 2GB frame support for page table walker. (by Michael Holzheu) f6ab608
>     - [PATCH v2 1/2] Add get_free_memory_size() to get the amount of free memory.
>       (by Atsushi Kumagai) 8dd4a17
>     - [PATCH v2 2/2] Calculate the size of cyclic buffer automatically. (by Atsushi Kumagai) 01db605
> 
> o Bugfix
>     - [PATCH] add a missing return statement. (by Petr Tesarik) f6134c7
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Atsushi Kumagai
> 


I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 

We are still evaluating perfomance data, and don't have very precise
measurements here for comparisons, but the results look promising so
far.   

Lisa Mitchell


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Vivek Goyal]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:55AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:

[..]
> I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 

This sounds little odd to me.

- With smaller buffer size of 48M, it should have taken much more time
  to finish the dump as compared to when no restriction was put on
  buffer size. I am assuming that out of 256M reserved, say around 128MB
  was available for makedumpfile to use.

- Also 2 hours 40 minutes sounds a lot. Is it practical to wait that
  long for a machine to dump before it can be brought into service
  again? Do you have any data w.r.t older makedumpfile (which did not
  have cyclic buffer logic).

I have some data which I collected in 2008. 128GB system took roughly
4 minutes to filter and save dumpfile. So if we scale it linearly
then it should take around 32minutes per TB. Hence around 2 hours
8 minutes for a 4TB systems. Your numbers do seems to be in roughly
inline.

Still 2-2.5 hours seems too long to be able to filter and save core of a
4TB system. We will probably need to figure out what's taking so much of
time. May be we need to look into cliff wickman's idea of kernel returning
list of pfns to dump and make dump 20 time faster. I will love to have 4TB
system dumped in 6 minutes as opposed to 2 hrs. :-)

Thanks
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:35 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:55AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> 
> [..]
> > I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> > kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> > settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> > completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> > buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> > measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> 
> This sounds little odd to me.
> 
> - With smaller buffer size of 48M, it should have taken much more time
>   to finish the dump as compared to when no restriction was put on
>   buffer size. I am assuming that out of 256M reserved, say around 128MB
>   was available for makedumpfile to use.
> 
> - Also 2 hours 40 minutes sounds a lot. Is it practical to wait that
>   long for a machine to dump before it can be brought into service
>   again? Do you have any data w.r.t older makedumpfile (which did not
>   have cyclic buffer logic).
> 
> I have some data which I collected in 2008. 128GB system took roughly
> 4 minutes to filter and save dumpfile. So if we scale it linearly
> then it should take around 32minutes per TB. Hence around 2 hours
> 8 minutes for a 4TB systems. Your numbers do seems to be in roughly
> inline.
> 
> Still 2-2.5 hours seems too long to be able to filter and save core of a
> 4TB system. We will probably need to figure out what's taking so much of
> time. May be we need to look into cliff wickman's idea of kernel returning
> list of pfns to dump and make dump 20 time faster. I will love to have 4TB
> system dumped in 6 minutes as opposed to 2 hrs. :-)
> 
> Thanks
> Vivek

As I stated, I don't really have precise performance data here, but the
time I got was comparable to the rough 3-4 hours with a larger
crashkernel size that I got a successful dump on this same system with a
makedumpfile v1.4.  We haven't made a good apples-apples comparison
between the two at this point, but this is how long this 4 TB system has
been taking to dump, dump level =31, so we feel we are in the same
ballpark with makedumpfile v1.5.1.  

It does seem that the "Excluding pages" parts take up a lot of the time
in the dump, as opposed to the copying, but I don't have a good
breakdown.  

I have added the debug mem_level 3 to kdump.conf file, and have seen
used memory on this machine  recorded right before makedumpfile creates
the bitmap and starts filtering be around 140 MB, and have seen
makedumpfile fail, with OOM killer active after this point with a
crashkernel size of 256 MB or 384 MB using makedumpfile v1.4.  

So makedumpfile v1.5.1 solves the above problem, and allows us to
successfully dump a 4 TB system with these smaller crashkernel sizes.

We do need much better performance numbers  to insure no regression from
makedumpfile v1.4, but I wanted you to get the feedback at least of what
testing we had done, and that it appears it is solving the primary
problem we were interested in, that we could dump many terabytes of
memory with crashkernel sizes fixed at 384 MB or below. 



_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Vivek Goyal]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:03:20AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:35 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:55AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> > 
> > [..]
> > > I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> > > kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> > > settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> > > completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> > > buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> > > measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> > 
> > This sounds little odd to me.
> > 
> > - With smaller buffer size of 48M, it should have taken much more time
> >   to finish the dump as compared to when no restriction was put on
> >   buffer size. I am assuming that out of 256M reserved, say around 128MB
> >   was available for makedumpfile to use.
> > 
> > - Also 2 hours 40 minutes sounds a lot. Is it practical to wait that
> >   long for a machine to dump before it can be brought into service
> >   again? Do you have any data w.r.t older makedumpfile (which did not
> >   have cyclic buffer logic).
> > 
> > I have some data which I collected in 2008. 128GB system took roughly
> > 4 minutes to filter and save dumpfile. So if we scale it linearly
> > then it should take around 32minutes per TB. Hence around 2 hours
> > 8 minutes for a 4TB systems. Your numbers do seems to be in roughly
> > inline.
> > 
> > Still 2-2.5 hours seems too long to be able to filter and save core of a
> > 4TB system. We will probably need to figure out what's taking so much of
> > time. May be we need to look into cliff wickman's idea of kernel returning
> > list of pfns to dump and make dump 20 time faster. I will love to have 4TB
> > system dumped in 6 minutes as opposed to 2 hrs. :-)
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Vivek
> 
> As I stated, I don't really have precise performance data here, but the
> time I got was comparable to the rough 3-4 hours with a larger
> crashkernel size that I got a successful dump on this same system with a
> makedumpfile v1.4.  We haven't made a good apples-apples comparison
> between the two at this point, but this is how long this 4 TB system has
> been taking to dump, dump level =31, so we feel we are in the same
> ballpark with makedumpfile v1.5.1.  
> 
> It does seem that the "Excluding pages" parts take up a lot of the time
> in the dump, as opposed to the copying, but I don't have a good
> breakdown.  
> 
> I have added the debug mem_level 3 to kdump.conf file, and have seen
> used memory on this machine  recorded right before makedumpfile creates
> the bitmap and starts filtering be around 140 MB, and have seen
> makedumpfile fail, with OOM killer active after this point with a
> crashkernel size of 256 MB or 384 MB using makedumpfile v1.4.  

That's sounds right. makedumpfile requires roughly 64MB of memory per TB.
So to be able to filter out 4TB, one needs 256MB of free memory. So no
wonder makedumpfile v1.4 will fail with 140MB free.

> 
> So makedumpfile v1.5.1 solves the above problem, and allows us to
> successfully dump a 4 TB system with these smaller crashkernel sizes.

Ok, great. Good to know v1.5.1 is atleast allowing dumping higher memory
systems with smaller reserved amount of memory.

> 
> We do need much better performance numbers  to insure no regression from
> makedumpfile v1.4, but I wanted you to get the feedback at least of what
> testing we had done, and that it appears it is solving the primary
> problem we were interested in, that we could dump many terabytes of
> memory with crashkernel sizes fixed at 384 MB or below. 

Fair enough.

Thanks
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 21:46 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:03:20AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:35 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:55AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> > > 
> > > [..]
> > > > I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> > > > kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> > > > settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> > > > completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> > > > buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> > > > measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> > > 
> > > This sounds little odd to me.
> > > 
> > > - With smaller buffer size of 48M, it should have taken much more time
> > >   to finish the dump as compared to when no restriction was put on
> > >   buffer size. I am assuming that out of 256M reserved, say around 128MB
> > >   was available for makedumpfile to use.
> > > 
> > > - Also 2 hours 40 minutes sounds a lot. Is it practical to wait that
> > >   long for a machine to dump before it can be brought into service
> > >   again? Do you have any data w.r.t older makedumpfile (which did not
> > >   have cyclic buffer logic).
> > > 
> > > I have some data which I collected in 2008. 128GB system took roughly
> > > 4 minutes to filter and save dumpfile. So if we scale it linearly
> > > then it should take around 32minutes per TB. Hence around 2 hours
> > > 8 minutes for a 4TB systems. Your numbers do seems to be in roughly
> > > inline.
> > > 
> > > Still 2-2.5 hours seems too long to be able to filter and save core of a
> > > 4TB system. We will probably need to figure out what's taking so much of
> > > time. May be we need to look into cliff wickman's idea of kernel returning
> > > list of pfns to dump and make dump 20 time faster. I will love to have 4TB
> > > system dumped in 6 minutes as opposed to 2 hrs. :-)
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > > Vivek
> > 
> > As I stated, I don't really have precise performance data here, but the
> > time I got was comparable to the rough 3-4 hours with a larger
> > crashkernel size that I got a successful dump on this same system with a
> > makedumpfile v1.4.  We haven't made a good apples-apples comparison
> > between the two at this point, but this is how long this 4 TB system has
> > been taking to dump, dump level =31, so we feel we are in the same
> > ballpark with makedumpfile v1.5.1.  
> > 
> > It does seem that the "Excluding pages" parts take up a lot of the time
> > in the dump, as opposed to the copying, but I don't have a good
> > breakdown.  
> > 
> > I have added the debug mem_level 3 to kdump.conf file, and have seen
> > used memory on this machine  recorded right before makedumpfile creates
> > the bitmap and starts filtering be around 140 MB, and have seen
> > makedumpfile fail, with OOM killer active after this point with a
> > crashkernel size of 256 MB or 384 MB using makedumpfile v1.4.  
> 
> That's sounds right. makedumpfile requires roughly 64MB of memory per TB.
> So to be able to filter out 4TB, one needs 256MB of free memory. So no
> wonder makedumpfile v1.4 will fail with 140MB free.
> 
> > 
> > So makedumpfile v1.5.1 solves the above problem, and allows us to
> > successfully dump a 4 TB system with these smaller crashkernel sizes.
> 
> Ok, great. Good to know v1.5.1 is atleast allowing dumping higher memory
> systems with smaller reserved amount of memory.
> 
> > 
> > We do need much better performance numbers  to insure no regression from
> > makedumpfile v1.4, but I wanted you to get the feedback at least of what
> > testing we had done, and that it appears it is solving the primary
> > problem we were interested in, that we could dump many terabytes of
> > memory with crashkernel sizes fixed at 384 MB or below. 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> Thanks
> Vivek

That said, I am very interested in seeing any changes to makedumpfile or
anywhere in the kexec/kdump code that promise substantial improvements
for dump performance, especially to the multi TB systems.  The dump time
currently is very long for these systems, and the customers for these
large systems want minimum downtime, so improving the current status quo
is a high priority. 

The changes proposed by Ciff Wickman in
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007178.html
sound like they could bring big improvements in performance, so these
should be investigated.  I would like to try a version of them built on
top of makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc, to try on our 4 TB system, to see what
performance gains we can get, as an experiment. 



_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Vivek Goyal]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:05:41PM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 21:46 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:03:20AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 16:35 +0000, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:14:55AM -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > [..]
> > > > > I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> > > > > kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> > > > > settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> > > > > completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> > > > > buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> > > > > measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> > > > 
> > > > This sounds little odd to me.
> > > > 
> > > > - With smaller buffer size of 48M, it should have taken much more time
> > > >   to finish the dump as compared to when no restriction was put on
> > > >   buffer size. I am assuming that out of 256M reserved, say around 128MB
> > > >   was available for makedumpfile to use.
> > > > 
> > > > - Also 2 hours 40 minutes sounds a lot. Is it practical to wait that
> > > >   long for a machine to dump before it can be brought into service
> > > >   again? Do you have any data w.r.t older makedumpfile (which did not
> > > >   have cyclic buffer logic).
> > > > 
> > > > I have some data which I collected in 2008. 128GB system took roughly
> > > > 4 minutes to filter and save dumpfile. So if we scale it linearly
> > > > then it should take around 32minutes per TB. Hence around 2 hours
> > > > 8 minutes for a 4TB systems. Your numbers do seems to be in roughly
> > > > inline.
> > > > 
> > > > Still 2-2.5 hours seems too long to be able to filter and save core of a
> > > > 4TB system. We will probably need to figure out what's taking so much of
> > > > time. May be we need to look into cliff wickman's idea of kernel returning
> > > > list of pfns to dump and make dump 20 time faster. I will love to have 4TB
> > > > system dumped in 6 minutes as opposed to 2 hrs. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Vivek
> > > 
> > > As I stated, I don't really have precise performance data here, but the
> > > time I got was comparable to the rough 3-4 hours with a larger
> > > crashkernel size that I got a successful dump on this same system with a
> > > makedumpfile v1.4.  We haven't made a good apples-apples comparison
> > > between the two at this point, but this is how long this 4 TB system has
> > > been taking to dump, dump level =31, so we feel we are in the same
> > > ballpark with makedumpfile v1.5.1.  
> > > 
> > > It does seem that the "Excluding pages" parts take up a lot of the time
> > > in the dump, as opposed to the copying, but I don't have a good
> > > breakdown.  
> > > 
> > > I have added the debug mem_level 3 to kdump.conf file, and have seen
> > > used memory on this machine  recorded right before makedumpfile creates
> > > the bitmap and starts filtering be around 140 MB, and have seen
> > > makedumpfile fail, with OOM killer active after this point with a
> > > crashkernel size of 256 MB or 384 MB using makedumpfile v1.4.  
> > 
> > That's sounds right. makedumpfile requires roughly 64MB of memory per TB.
> > So to be able to filter out 4TB, one needs 256MB of free memory. So no
> > wonder makedumpfile v1.4 will fail with 140MB free.
> > 
> > > 
> > > So makedumpfile v1.5.1 solves the above problem, and allows us to
> > > successfully dump a 4 TB system with these smaller crashkernel sizes.
> > 
> > Ok, great. Good to know v1.5.1 is atleast allowing dumping higher memory
> > systems with smaller reserved amount of memory.
> > 
> > > 
> > > We do need much better performance numbers  to insure no regression from
> > > makedumpfile v1.4, but I wanted you to get the feedback at least of what
> > > testing we had done, and that it appears it is solving the primary
> > > problem we were interested in, that we could dump many terabytes of
> > > memory with crashkernel sizes fixed at 384 MB or below. 
> > 
> > Fair enough.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Vivek
> 
> That said, I am very interested in seeing any changes to makedumpfile or
> anywhere in the kexec/kdump code that promise substantial improvements
> for dump performance, especially to the multi TB systems.  The dump time
> currently is very long for these systems, and the customers for these
> large systems want minimum downtime, so improving the current status quo
> is a high priority. 
> 
> The changes proposed by Ciff Wickman in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007178.html
> sound like they could bring big improvements in performance, so these
> should be investigated.  I would like to try a version of them built on
> top of makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc, to try on our 4 TB system, to see what
> performance gains we can get, as an experiment. 

I am wondering if it is time to look into parallel processing. Somebody
was working on bringing up more cpus in kdump kernel. If that works, the
probably multiple makedumpfile threads can try to filter out different
sections of physical memory.

Thanks
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

RE: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Hatayama, Daisuke]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org
> [mailto:kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Vivek Goyal
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:54 PM
> To: Lisa Mitchell
> Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org; Atsushi Kumagai; Hoemann, Jerry; Cliff
> Wickman
> Subject: Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC
[...]
> > The changes proposed by Ciff Wickman in
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007178.html
> > sound like they could bring big improvements in performance, so these
> > should be investigated.  I would like to try a version of them built on
> > top of makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc, to try on our 4 TB system, to see what
> > performance gains we can get, as an experiment.
> 
> I am wondering if it is time to look into parallel processing. Somebody
> was working on bringing up more cpus in kdump kernel. If that works, the
> probably multiple makedumpfile threads can try to filter out different
> sections of physical memory.
> 

Makedumpfile has already had such parallel processing feature:

$ ./makedumpfile --help
...
  [--split]:
      Split the dump data to multiple DUMPFILEs in parallel. If specifying
      DUMPFILEs on different storage devices, a device can share I/O load with
      other devices and it reduces time for saving the dump data. The file size
      of each DUMPFILE is smaller than the system memory size which is divided
      by the number of DUMPFILEs.
      This feature supports only the kdump-compressed format.

Doing makedumpfile like:

  $ makedumpfile --split dumpfile vmcore1 vmcore2 [vmcore3 ... vmcore_n]

original dumpfile are splitted into n vmcores of kdump-compressed formats, each of
which has the same size basically and where n processes are used, not threads.
(The author told me the reason why process was chosen that he didn't want to put
relatively large libc library in the 2nd kernel at that time. But recently, libc library is
present on the 2nd kernel as scp needs to use it. This might no longer pointless.)

I think Cliff's idea works orthogonally to parallel processing. I'll also test it on our
machine.

Also, sorry for delaying the work on multiple cpus in the 2nd kernel. Posting new
version of the patch set is delayed a few weeks more. But it's possible to wake up
AP cpus in the 2nd kernel safely if BIOS always assigns 0 lapicid to BSP since
then if kexec enteres 2nd kernel with some AP lcpu, kernel always assigns 1 lcpu
number to BSP lcpu. So, maxcpus=1 and waking up cpus except for 1 lcpu works
as a workaround. If anyone wants to bench with parallel processing, please do it
like this.

Thanks.
HATAYAMA, Daisuke


_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Vivek Goyal]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 12:49:35AM +0000, Hatayama, Daisuke wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org
> > [mailto:kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Vivek Goyal
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 10:54 PM
> > To: Lisa Mitchell
> > Cc: kexec@lists.infradead.org; Atsushi Kumagai; Hoemann, Jerry; Cliff
> > Wickman
> > Subject: Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC
> [...]
> > > The changes proposed by Ciff Wickman in
> > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-November/007178.html
> > > sound like they could bring big improvements in performance, so these
> > > should be investigated.  I would like to try a version of them built on
> > > top of makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc, to try on our 4 TB system, to see what
> > > performance gains we can get, as an experiment.
> > 
> > I am wondering if it is time to look into parallel processing. Somebody
> > was working on bringing up more cpus in kdump kernel. If that works, the
> > probably multiple makedumpfile threads can try to filter out different
> > sections of physical memory.
> > 
> 
> Makedumpfile has already had such parallel processing feature:
> 
> $ ./makedumpfile --help
> ...
>   [--split]:
>       Split the dump data to multiple DUMPFILEs in parallel. If specifying
>       DUMPFILEs on different storage devices, a device can share I/O load with
>       other devices and it reduces time for saving the dump data. The file size
>       of each DUMPFILE is smaller than the system memory size which is divided
>       by the number of DUMPFILEs.
>       This feature supports only the kdump-compressed format.
> 
> Doing makedumpfile like:
> 
>   $ makedumpfile --split dumpfile vmcore1 vmcore2 [vmcore3 ... vmcore_n]
> 

Ok, this is interesting. So reassembling of various vmcore fragments
happen later and user needs to explicitly do that?


> original dumpfile are splitted into n vmcores of kdump-compressed formats, each of
> which has the same size basically and where n processes are used, not threads.
> (The author told me the reason why process was chosen that he didn't want to put
> relatively large libc library in the 2nd kernel at that time. But recently, libc library is
> present on the 2nd kernel as scp needs to use it. This might no longer pointless.)
> 
> I think Cliff's idea works orthogonally to parallel processing. I'll also test it on our
> machine.
> 
> Also, sorry for delaying the work on multiple cpus in the 2nd kernel. Posting new
> version of the patch set is delayed a few weeks more. But it's possible to wake up
> AP cpus in the 2nd kernel safely if BIOS always assigns 0 lapicid to BSP since
> then if kexec enteres 2nd kernel with some AP lcpu, kernel always assigns 1 lcpu
> number to BSP lcpu. So, maxcpus=1 and waking up cpus except for 1 lcpu works
> as a workaround. If anyone wants to bench with parallel processing, please do it
> like this.

Thanks. If you happen to do some benchmarking, please do share the
numebrs. I am really curious to know if this parallel processing will
speed up the things enough to have reasonable dump times on multi tera
byte machines.

Thanks
Vivek

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 05:14 -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:

> 
> 
> I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> 
> We are still evaluating perfomance data, and don't have very precise
> measurements here for comparisons, but the results look promising so
> far.   
> 
> Lisa Mitchell

Update:

 I did another test over the last few days that was a better apples-to-
apples comparison, contrasting the performance of makedumpfile 1.4  with
makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a RHEL 6.3 system with 4 TB of memory.

Earlier I had not taken good comparable measurements of the dump times,
from the exact same machine configuration comparisons of the timing
differences between the two makedumpfiles.  I had noted that
makedumpfile 1.5.1-rc seemed a performance improvemnt over makedumpfile
v1.5.0 results seen earlier.

Unfortunately this weekend, the results showed a significant performance
regression still with makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc compared to makedumpfile
1.4 

This time my performance measurements were based on comparing the file
system timestamps in the /var/crash directory, showing the difference
from when the crash directory was created by makedumpfile, to the
timestamp on the vmcore file, to show when the copy of the memory to
this file was complete. 

1. Baseline:  On the 4 TB DL980, with the RHEL 6.3 installation,(2.6.32
based kernel) with a crashkernel size of 512M or 384M  (both big enough
to contain the 256M bit map required, plus the kernel).The makedumpfile
command line was the same for both tests: " -c --message-level 1 -d 31"
The timestamps shown for the dump copy were:

# cd /var/crash
# ls
127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
# cd 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
#ls -al 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
total 10739980^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 Nov 30 17:07 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root        4096 Nov 30 15:28 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10997727069 Nov 30 17:07 vmcore

From the time stamps above the dump started at 15:28, completed at
17:07, the dump time was 1 hour, 41 minutes.

2. Makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc on the same system configuration as (1.)
above, but with crashkernel size set to 256 M to insure the use of the
cyclic buffer feature to fit in smaller crashkernel space.  The same
makedumpfile command line of "-c --message-level 1 -d 31" was used.

#cd /var/crash
# ls -al
total 12
drwxr-xr-x.  3 root root 4096 Nov 30 23:25 .
drwxr-xr-x. 22 root root 4096 Nov 30 08:41 ..
drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root 4096 Dec  1 02:05 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-23:25:20

#ls -al *
total 10734932
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 Dec  1 02:05 .
drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root        4096 Nov 30 23:25 ..
-rw-------. 1 root root 10992554141 Dec  1 02:05 vmcore

From the timestamps above, the dump started at 23:25 and completed at
2:05 after midnight, so the total dump time was 2 hours and 40 minutes.

So for this 4 TB system, in this test, the dump write phase took 1 hour
longer for makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc, versus makedumpfile v1.4. This time
seems dominated by the dump filtering activity, assuming the  copy to
disk times should have been the same, though I don't have a good
breakdown. 

I look forward to the GA version of makedumpfile v1.5.1 to see if there
are any improvements, but it now looks to me like there are still a lot
of improvements needed before v1.5.1 will have performance parity with
v1.4

Has anyone else done performance comparisons on multi-terabyte systems
between makedumpfile 1.5.1 and makedumpfile 1.4, to see if others get
similar results, or if my measurement method is inaccurate?








_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Atsushi Kumagai]

Hello Lisa,

On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 06:31:39 -0700
Lisa Mitchell <lisa.mitchell@hp.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 05:14 -0700, Lisa Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 
> > I tested this makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a 4 TB DL980, on 2.6.32 based
> > kernel, and got good results. With crashkernel=256M, and default
> > settings (i.e. no cyclic buffer option selected), the dump successfully
> > completed in about 2 hours, 40 minutes, and then I specified a cyclic
> > buffer size of 48 M, and the dump completed in the same time, no
> > measurable differences within the accuracy of our measurements. 
> > 
> > We are still evaluating perfomance data, and don't have very precise
> > measurements here for comparisons, but the results look promising so
> > far.   
> > 
> > Lisa Mitchell
> 
> Update:
> 
>  I did another test over the last few days that was a better apples-to-
> apples comparison, contrasting the performance of makedumpfile 1.4  with
> makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc on a RHEL 6.3 system with 4 TB of memory.

Thanks for your measurement.
It's very helpful because I can't get a chance to use such a large memory
machine.

> Earlier I had not taken good comparable measurements of the dump times,
> from the exact same machine configuration comparisons of the timing
> differences between the two makedumpfiles.  I had noted that
> makedumpfile 1.5.1-rc seemed a performance improvemnt over makedumpfile
> v1.5.0 results seen earlier.
> 
> Unfortunately this weekend, the results showed a significant performance
> regression still with makedumpfile v1.5.1-rc compared to makedumpfile
> 1.4 
> 
> This time my performance measurements were based on comparing the file
> system timestamps in the /var/crash directory, showing the difference
> from when the crash directory was created by makedumpfile, to the
> timestamp on the vmcore file, to show when the copy of the memory to
> this file was complete. 
> 
> 1. Baseline:  On the 4 TB DL980, with the RHEL 6.3 installation,(2.6.32
> based kernel) with a crashkernel size of 512M or 384M  (both big enough
> to contain the 256M bit map required, plus the kernel).The makedumpfile
> command line was the same for both tests: " -c --message-level 1 -d 31"
> The timestamps shown for the dump copy were:
> 
> # cd /var/crash
> # ls
> 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
> # cd 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
> #ls -al 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-15:28:22
> total 10739980^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 Nov 30 17:07 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root        4096 Nov 30 15:28 ..^M
> -rw-------. 1 root root 10997727069 Nov 30 17:07 vmcore
> 
> >From the time stamps above the dump started at 15:28, completed at
> 17:07, the dump time was 1 hour, 41 minutes.
> 
> 2. Makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc on the same system configuration as (1.)
> above, but with crashkernel size set to 256 M to insure the use of the
> cyclic buffer feature to fit in smaller crashkernel space.  The same
> makedumpfile command line of "-c --message-level 1 -d 31" was used.
> 
> #cd /var/crash
> # ls -al
> total 12
> drwxr-xr-x.  3 root root 4096 Nov 30 23:25 .
> drwxr-xr-x. 22 root root 4096 Nov 30 08:41 ..
> drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root 4096 Dec  1 02:05 127.0.0.1-2012-11-30-23:25:20
> 
> #ls -al *
> total 10734932
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 Dec  1 02:05 .
> drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root        4096 Nov 30 23:25 ..
> -rw-------. 1 root root 10992554141 Dec  1 02:05 vmcore
> 
> >From the timestamps above, the dump started at 23:25 and completed at
> 2:05 after midnight, so the total dump time was 2 hours and 40 minutes.
> 
> So for this 4 TB system, in this test, the dump write phase took 1 hour
> longer for makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc, versus makedumpfile v1.4. This time
> seems dominated by the dump filtering activity, assuming the  copy to
> disk times should have been the same, though I don't have a good
> breakdown. 

As you may understand, the number of cycle is two (or larger) in your
test (2.). And it seems that you used free_list logic because you
specified neither -x vmlinux option nor -i vmcoreinfo_text_file option.
(Please see release note for how to use mem_map array logic.)

  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007460.html

This combination means that redundant scans was done in your test,
I think makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc couldn't show the best performance we expected.

So, could you do the same test with v1.5.1-GA (but, the logic isn't different
from rc) and -i vmcoreinfo_text_file option ? We should see its result and
discuss it.

In addition, you need to include vmcoreinfo_text_file in initramfs in order
to use -i option. If you have RedHat OS, you can refer to /sbin/mkdumprd
to know how to do it.


Thanks
Atushi Kumagai

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 05:26 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:

> As you may understand, the number of cycle is two (or larger) in your
> test (2.). And it seems that you used free_list logic because you
> specified neither -x vmlinux option nor -i vmcoreinfo_text_file option.
> (Please see release note for how to use mem_map array logic.)
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007460.html
> 
> This combination means that redundant scans was done in your test,
> I think makedumpfile-v1.5.1-rc couldn't show the best performance we expected.
> 
> So, could you do the same test with v1.5.1-GA (but, the logic isn't different
> from rc) and -i vmcoreinfo_text_file option ? We should see its result and
> discuss it.
> 
> In addition, you need to include vmcoreinfo_text_file in initramfs in order
> to use -i option. If you have RedHat OS, you can refer to /sbin/mkdumprd
> to know how to do it.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Atushi Kumagai

Atushi, I put the kernel patch from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/90
that you had in the release notes, along with the modifications you
specified for a 2.6.32 kernel in
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007461.html
on my RHEL 6.3 kernel source, and built a patched kernel in order to
hopefully enable use of the mem map array logic feature during my dump
testing.

I do not have the use of the 4 TB system again, so I constrained a 256
GB system to a crashkernel size of 136M, which would cause the cyclic
buffer feature to be used and timed some dumps.  

I compared the dump time on the system with the makedumpfile 1.4 version
that ships with RHEL 6.3, using crashkernel=256M to contain the full
bitmap, to both the patched and unpatched kernels using
makedumpfilev1.5.1GA.  Here were the results, using the file timestamps.
All dumps were taken with core_collector makedumpfile -c --message-level
1 -d 31


1.  RHEL 6.3 2.6.32.279 kernel, makedumpfile 1.4, crashkernel=256M
 ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-16:44 
total 802160
drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 16:51:36.909648053 -0700 .
drwxr-xr-x. 12 root root      4096 2012-12-10 16:44:59.213529059
-0700 ..
-rw-------.  1 root root 821396774 2012-12-10 16:51:36.821529854 -0700
vmcore

Time to write out the dump file: 6.5 minutes


2. RHEL 6.3 2.6.32.279 kernel, makedumpfile 1.5.1GA, crashkernel=136M

 ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-15:17:18
total 806132
drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 15:27:28.799600723 -0700 .
drwxr-xr-x. 11 root root      4096 2012-12-10 15:17:19.202329188
-0700 ..
-rw-------.  1 root root 825465058 2012-12-10 15:27:28.774327293 -0700
vmcore

Time to write out the dump file:  10 minutes, 10 seconds

3. Patched RHEL 6.3 kernel, makedumpfile 1.5.1GA, crashkernel=136M

ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-14:42 ^M:28^M
total 808764^M
drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 14:50:04.263144379
-0700 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 10 root root      4096 2012-12-10 14:42:29.230903264
-0700 ..^M
-rw-------.  1 root root 828160709 2012-12-10 14:50:04.212739485 -0700
vmcore^M

Time to write out the dump file: 7.5 minutes


The above indicates that with the kernel patch we got a dump file write
time  2 minutes shorter than using makedumpfile 1.5.1 without the kernel
patch.  However, with the kernel patch (and hopefully this enabled the
mem map array logic feature)  I still got a dump time that was about 2
minutes longer, or in this case about 30% longer than the old
makedumpfile 1.4, using the full bitmap.  

So I still see a regression, which will have to be projected to the
multi TB systems.

Atushi, am I using the new makedumpfile 1.5.1GA correctly with the
kernel patch? 

I didn't understand how to use the options of makedumpfile you
mentioned, and when I tried with a vmlinux file, and the -x option,
makedumpfile didn't even start, just failed and reset. 

I was hoping with the kernel patch in place, that with the default
settings of makedumpfile, the mem map array logic would automatically be
used.  If not, I am still puzzled as to how to invoke it. 






_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Atsushi Kumagai]

Hello Lisa,

On Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:06:05 -0700
Lisa Mitchell <lisa.mitchell@hp.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 05:26 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> 
> Atushi, I put the kernel patch from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/90
> that you had in the release notes, along with the modifications you
> specified for a 2.6.32 kernel in
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007461.html
> on my RHEL 6.3 kernel source, and built a patched kernel in order to
> hopefully enable use of the mem map array logic feature during my dump
> testing.
> 
> I do not have the use of the 4 TB system again, so I constrained a 256
> GB system to a crashkernel size of 136M, which would cause the cyclic
> buffer feature to be used and timed some dumps.  
> 
> I compared the dump time on the system with the makedumpfile 1.4 version
> that ships with RHEL 6.3, using crashkernel=256M to contain the full
> bitmap, to both the patched and unpatched kernels using
> makedumpfilev1.5.1GA.  Here were the results, using the file timestamps.
> All dumps were taken with core_collector makedumpfile -c --message-level
> 1 -d 31
> 
> 
> 1.  RHEL 6.3 2.6.32.279 kernel, makedumpfile 1.4, crashkernel=256M
>  ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-16:44 
> total 802160
> drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 16:51:36.909648053 -0700 .
> drwxr-xr-x. 12 root root      4096 2012-12-10 16:44:59.213529059
> -0700 ..
> -rw-------.  1 root root 821396774 2012-12-10 16:51:36.821529854 -0700
> vmcore
> 
> Time to write out the dump file: 6.5 minutes
> 
> 
> 2. RHEL 6.3 2.6.32.279 kernel, makedumpfile 1.5.1GA, crashkernel=136M
> 
>  ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-15:17:18
> total 806132
> drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 15:27:28.799600723 -0700 .
> drwxr-xr-x. 11 root root      4096 2012-12-10 15:17:19.202329188
> -0700 ..
> -rw-------.  1 root root 825465058 2012-12-10 15:27:28.774327293 -0700
> vmcore
> 
> Time to write out the dump file:  10 minutes, 10 seconds
> 
> 3. Patched RHEL 6.3 kernel, makedumpfile 1.5.1GA, crashkernel=136M
> 
> ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-12-10-14:42 ^M:28^M
> total 808764^M
> drwxr-xr-x.  2 root root      4096 2012-12-10 14:50:04.263144379
> -0700 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 10 root root      4096 2012-12-10 14:42:29.230903264
> -0700 ..^M
> -rw-------.  1 root root 828160709 2012-12-10 14:50:04.212739485 -0700
> vmcore^M
> 
> Time to write out the dump file: 7.5 minutes
> 
> 
> The above indicates that with the kernel patch we got a dump file write
> time  2 minutes shorter than using makedumpfile 1.5.1 without the kernel
> patch.  However, with the kernel patch (and hopefully this enabled the
> mem map array logic feature)  I still got a dump time that was about 2
> minutes longer, or in this case about 30% longer than the old
> makedumpfile 1.4, using the full bitmap.  
> 
> So I still see a regression, which will have to be projected to the
> multi TB systems.

In cyclic mode, we can save only a chunk of bitmap at a time, 
this fact forces us to scan each cyclic region twice as below:

  Step1: To determine the offset of kdump's page data region.
  Step2: To distinguish whether each page is unnecessary or not.

Step1 should be done before writing phase (write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic())
and step2 is run while writing phase, the whole scan is needed for
each step.
On the other hand, v1.4 can execute both step1 and step2 with the temporary
bitmap file, the whole scan is done just one time to create the file.

It's a disadvantage in performance, but I think it's unavoidable.
(There is the exception when the number of cycles is 1, but current
version also scan twice in spite of redundancy.)

If more performance is needed, I think we should invent other
approaches like the idea discussed in the thread below:

  http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007494.html

Besides, I think v1.4 with the local disc which can contain the temporary
bitmap file is the fastest version for now.

> Atushi, am I using the new makedumpfile 1.5.1GA correctly with the
> kernel patch? 

Yes, I think you can use mem_map array logic correctly with the patch.
And you can confirm it with -D option. If you didn't meet the conditions
to use mem_map array logic, the message below will be showed.

  "Can't select page_is_buddy handler; follow free lists instead of mem_map array."

> I didn't understand how to use the options of makedumpfile you
> mentioned, and when I tried with a vmlinux file, and the -x option,
> makedumpfile didn't even start, just failed and reset. 

It might be another problem related -x option.
For investigation, could you run the command below and show its messages ?
There is no need to run in 2nd kernel environment.

  # makedumpfile -g vmcoreinfo -x vmlinux


Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai

> 
> I was hoping with the kernel patch in place, that with the default
> settings of makedumpfile, the mem map array logic would automatically be
> used.  If not, I am still puzzled as to how to invoke it. 

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Lisa Mitchell]

On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 05:06 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:

> 
> In cyclic mode, we can save only a chunk of bitmap at a time, 
> this fact forces us to scan each cyclic region twice as below:
> 
>   Step1: To determine the offset of kdump's page data region.
>   Step2: To distinguish whether each page is unnecessary or not.
> 
> Step1 should be done before writing phase (write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic())
> and step2 is run while writing phase, the whole scan is needed for
> each step.
> On the other hand, v1.4 can execute both step1 and step2 with the temporary
> bitmap file, the whole scan is done just one time to create the file.
> 
> It's a disadvantage in performance, but I think it's unavoidable.
> (There is the exception when the number of cycles is 1, but current
> version also scan twice in spite of redundancy.)
> 
> If more performance is needed, I think we should invent other
> approaches like the idea discussed in the thread below:
> 
>   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007494.html
> 
> Besides, I think v1.4 with the local disc which can contain the temporary
> bitmap file is the fastest version for now.
> 
> > Atushi, am I using the new makedumpfile 1.5.1GA correctly with the
> > kernel patch? 
> 
> Yes, I think you can use mem_map array logic correctly with the patch.
> And you can confirm it with -D option. If you didn't meet the conditions
> to use mem_map array logic, the message below will be showed.
> 
>   "Can't select page_is_buddy handler; follow free lists instead of mem_map array."
> 
> > I didn't understand how to use the options of makedumpfile you
> > mentioned, and when I tried with a vmlinux file, and the -x option,
> > makedumpfile didn't even start, just failed and reset. 
> 
> It might be another problem related -x option.
> For investigation, could you run the command below and show its messages ?
> There is no need to run in 2nd kernel environment.
> 
>   # makedumpfile -g vmcoreinfo -x vmlinux
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Atsushi Kumagai
> 


Thanks for this info, Atsushi.

I was able to test makedumpfile-v1.5.1 on the 4 TB DL980 we had this
weekend, along with the kexec patch to invoke the memory array logic,
and I got encouraging results, in that the difference  in dump time
between makedumpfile 1.4  on a RHEL 6.3 system and makedumpfile-v1.5.1
with the memory array logic seems to be now very small:


Here are my results (file system timestamp data and note the system had
it's filesystem time set way in the past):

					

1.  makedumpfile 1.4 (RHEL 6.3 default), crashkernel 512M:

       root@spb crash]# ls -al --time-style=full-iso
127.0.0.1-2012-05-09-19:55:50^M
total 10757984^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-09 21:53:21.289507559
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root        4096 2012-05-09 22:10:08.729553037
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 11016160846 2012-05-09 21:53:21.020384817 -0600
vmcore^

21:53:21 - 19:55:50 

Dump filter/copy time:  1 hour, 57 minutes, 29 seconds


2. makedumpfile-v1.5.1, with kexec patch, using memory array logic, took
3 dumps to see variations in times:

ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-05-10-23:42:35^M
total 10444952^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-11 01:52:18.512639105
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 23:42:39.270955565
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10695618226 2012-05-11 01:52:18.479636812 -0600
vmcore^M

Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours, 9 minutes, 11 sec


127.0.0.1-2012-05-12-20:57:08:^M
total 10469304^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-12 23:05:39.082084132
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root        4096 2012-05-12 20:57:12.627084279
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10720553208 2012-05-12 23:05:39.051082490 -0600
vmcore^M


Dump filter/copy time:  2 hours     8 minutes  26 seconds

27.0.0.1-2012-05-10-09:52:17:^M
total 10650776^M
drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-10 12:04:22.456078284
-0600 .^M
drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 09:52:22.068605263
-0600 ..^M
-rw-------. 1 root root 10906381384 2012-05-10 12:04:22.425076466 -0600
vmcore

Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours 13 minutes

So the dump times seem to vary + or minus 2-3 minutes, and the average
was about 2 hours 10 minutes, or 10-12 minutes longer than the
makedumpfile 1.4 dump time for a 4 TB system, when using a crashkernel
constrained to 384 MB, and the cyclic buffer feature is used.








_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec

Re: [RFC] makedumpfile-1.5.1 RC

[Atsushi Kumagai]

Hello Lisa,

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:20:43 -0700
Lisa Mitchell <lisa.mitchell@hp.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 05:06 +0000, Atsushi Kumagai wrote:
> 
> > 
> > In cyclic mode, we can save only a chunk of bitmap at a time, 
> > this fact forces us to scan each cyclic region twice as below:
> > 
> >   Step1: To determine the offset of kdump's page data region.
> >   Step2: To distinguish whether each page is unnecessary or not.
> > 
> > Step1 should be done before writing phase (write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic())
> > and step2 is run while writing phase, the whole scan is needed for
> > each step.
> > On the other hand, v1.4 can execute both step1 and step2 with the temporary
> > bitmap file, the whole scan is done just one time to create the file.
> > 
> > It's a disadvantage in performance, but I think it's unavoidable.
> > (There is the exception when the number of cycles is 1, but current
> > version also scan twice in spite of redundancy.)
> > 
> > If more performance is needed, I think we should invent other
> > approaches like the idea discussed in the thread below:
> > 
> >   http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/kexec/2012-December/007494.html
> > 
> > Besides, I think v1.4 with the local disc which can contain the temporary
> > bitmap file is the fastest version for now.
> > 
> > > Atushi, am I using the new makedumpfile 1.5.1GA correctly with the
> > > kernel patch? 
> > 
> > Yes, I think you can use mem_map array logic correctly with the patch.
> > And you can confirm it with -D option. If you didn't meet the conditions
> > to use mem_map array logic, the message below will be showed.
> > 
> >   "Can't select page_is_buddy handler; follow free lists instead of mem_map array."
> > 
> > > I didn't understand how to use the options of makedumpfile you
> > > mentioned, and when I tried with a vmlinux file, and the -x option,
> > > makedumpfile didn't even start, just failed and reset. 
> > 
> > It might be another problem related -x option.
> > For investigation, could you run the command below and show its messages ?
> > There is no need to run in 2nd kernel environment.
> > 
> >   # makedumpfile -g vmcoreinfo -x vmlinux
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Atsushi Kumagai
> > 
> 
> 
> Thanks for this info, Atsushi.
> 
> I was able to test makedumpfile-v1.5.1 on the 4 TB DL980 we had this
> weekend, along with the kexec patch to invoke the memory array logic,
> and I got encouraging results, in that the difference  in dump time
> between makedumpfile 1.4  on a RHEL 6.3 system and makedumpfile-v1.5.1
> with the memory array logic seems to be now very small:

Thanks for your hard work, it's good results.

According to your measurements on 256 GB and 4 TB, the difference in
dump time may be about ten percent of the total time in any memory size.

I think it's acceptable overhead costs to keep memory consumption
and the mem_map array logic works as we expected.


Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai


> Here are my results (file system timestamp data and note the system had
> it's filesystem time set way in the past):
> 
> 					
> 
> 1.  makedumpfile 1.4 (RHEL 6.3 default), crashkernel 512M:
> 
>        root@spb crash]# ls -al --time-style=full-iso
> 127.0.0.1-2012-05-09-19:55:50^M
> total 10757984^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-09 21:53:21.289507559
> -0600 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 4 root root        4096 2012-05-09 22:10:08.729553037
> -0600 ..^M
> -rw-------. 1 root root 11016160846 2012-05-09 21:53:21.020384817 -0600
> vmcore^
> 
> 21:53:21 - 19:55:50 
> 
> Dump filter/copy time:  1 hour, 57 minutes, 29 seconds
> 
> 
> 2. makedumpfile-v1.5.1, with kexec patch, using memory array logic, took
> 3 dumps to see variations in times:
> 
> ls -al --time-style=full-iso 127.0.0.1-2012-05-10-23:42:35^M
> total 10444952^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-11 01:52:18.512639105
> -0600 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 23:42:39.270955565
> -0600 ..^M
> -rw-------. 1 root root 10695618226 2012-05-11 01:52:18.479636812 -0600
> vmcore^M
> 
> Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours, 9 minutes, 11 sec
> 
> 
> 127.0.0.1-2012-05-12-20:57:08:^M
> total 10469304^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-12 23:05:39.082084132
> -0600 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root        4096 2012-05-12 20:57:12.627084279
> -0600 ..^M
> -rw-------. 1 root root 10720553208 2012-05-12 23:05:39.051082490 -0600
> vmcore^M
> 
> 
> Dump filter/copy time:  2 hours     8 minutes  26 seconds
> 
> 27.0.0.1-2012-05-10-09:52:17:^M
> total 10650776^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root        4096 2012-05-10 12:04:22.456078284
> -0600 .^M
> drwxr-xr-x. 6 root root        4096 2012-05-10 09:52:22.068605263
> -0600 ..^M
> -rw-------. 1 root root 10906381384 2012-05-10 12:04:22.425076466 -0600
> vmcore
> 
> Dump filter/copy time: 2 hours 13 minutes
> 
> So the dump times seem to vary + or minus 2-3 minutes, and the average
> was about 2 hours 10 minutes, or 10-12 minutes longer than the
> makedumpfile 1.4 dump time for a 4 TB system, when using a crashkernel
> constrained to 384 MB, and the cyclic buffer feature is used.

_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec