From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.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, "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [numa shrinker] 9b17c62382: -36.6% regression on sparse file copy
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:09:43 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140127120943.GA17055@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140115001827.GO3469@dastard>
Hi Dave,
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 11:18:27AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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.
Yes, the two patches help a lot:
9b17c62382dd2e7 8401edd4b12960c703233f4ed
--------------- -------------------------
6748913 ~ 2% +37.5% 9281049 ~ 1% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-btrfs-lru-file-readtwice
8417200 ~ 0% +56.5% 13172417 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-ext4-lru-file-readtwice
8333983 ~ 1% +56.9% 13078610 ~ 0% brickland2/debug2/vm-scalability/300s-xfs-lru-file-readtwice
23500096 ~ 1% +51.2% 35532077 ~ 0% TOTAL vm-scalability.throughput
They restore performance numbers back to 1d3d4437eae1bb2's level
(which is 9b17c62382's parent commit).
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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:[~2014-01-27 12:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ 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 13:10 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-08 11:14 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-09 2:57 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-01-15 0:18 ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-27 12:09 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
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=20140127120943.GA17055@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.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 \
--cc=tim.c.chen@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).