From: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <danielbristot@gmail.com>
To: Clark Williams <williams@redhat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RT] rwsem: The return of multi-reader PI rwsems
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:39:09 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <534860FD.3030702@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140410094430.56ca9ee1@sluggy.gateway.2wire.net>
On 04/10/2014 11:44 AM, Clark Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 15:19:22 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
>
>> This patch is built on top of the two other patches that I posted
>> earlier, which should not be as controversial.
>>
>> If you have any benchmark on large machines I would be very happy if
>> you could test this patch against the unpatched version of -rt.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Steve
>>
>
> Steven
>
> I wrote a program named whack_mmap_sem which creates a large (4GB)
> buffer, then creates 2 x ncpus threads that are affined across all the
> available cpus. These threads then randomly write into the buffer,
> which should cause page faults galore.
>
> I then built the following kernel configs:
>
> vanilla-3.13.15 - no RT patches applied
> rt-3.12.15 - PREEMPT_RT patchset
> rt-3.12.15-fixes - PREEMPT_RT + rwsem fixes
> rt-3.12.15-multi - PREEMPT_RT + rwsem fixes + rwsem-multi patch
>
> My test h/w was a Dell R520 with a 6-core Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2430
> 0 @ 2.20GHz (hyperthreaded). So whack_mmap_sem created 24 threads
> which all partied in the 4GB address range.
>
> I ran whack_mmap_sem with the argument -w 100000 which means each
> thread does 100k writes to random locations inside the buffer and then
> did five runs per each kernel. At the end of the run whack_mmap_sem
> prints out the time of the run in microseconds.
>
> The means of each group of five test runs are:
>
> vanilla.log: 1210117
> rt.log: 17210953 (14.2 x slower than vanilla)
> rt-fixes.log: 10062027 (8.3 x slower than vanilla)
> rt-multi.log: 3179582 (2.x x slower than vanilla)
>
Hi
I ran Clark's test on a machine with 32 CPUs: 2 Sockets, 8 core/socket + HT
On this machine I ran 5 different kernels:
Vanilla: 3.12.15 - Vanilla
RT: 3.12.15 + Preempt-RT 3.12.15-rt25
FIX: RT + rwsem fixes from rostedt
Multi: FIX + Multi-reader PI
Multi -FULL: Multi + CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
I ran the test with the same parameters that Clark used, 100 iterations
for each kernel. For each kernel I measure the min and max execution
time, along with the avg execution time and the standard deviation.
The result was:
+-------+---------+----------+----------+-----------+-------------+
| | Vanilla | RT | FIX | Multi | Multi -FULL |
--------+---------+----------+----------+-----------+-------------+
|MIN: | 3806754 | 6092939 | 6324665 | 2633614 | 3867240 |
|AVG: | 3875201 | 8162832 | 8007934 | 2736253 | 3961607 |
|MAX: | 4062205 | 10951416 | 10574212 | 2972458 | 4139297 |
|STDEV: | 47645 | 927839 | 943482 | 52579 | 943482 |
+-------+---------+----------+----------+-----------+-------------+
A comparative of avg case to vanilla:
RT - 2.10x (slower)
FIX - 2.06x (slower)
Multi - 0.70x (faster?)
Multi no PREEMPT_FULL - 1.02x (equals?)
As we can see, the patch gave good results on Preempt-RT, but my results
was a little bit weird, because the PREEMPT-RT + Multi patch became
faster than vanilla.
In the standard deviation, the patch showed a good result as well, with
the patch the std dev became ~17x smaller than on RT kernel without the
patch, which means less jitter.
-- Daniel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-04-11 21:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-09 19:19 [RFC PATCH RT] rwsem: The return of multi-reader PI rwsems Steven Rostedt
2014-04-10 14:18 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-04-10 14:28 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-04-10 14:32 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-11 2:50 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-04-11 3:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-11 3:52 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-04-11 4:25 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-04-10 14:44 ` Clark Williams
2014-04-10 15:01 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-10 15:03 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2014-04-10 15:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-10 19:17 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-10 20:48 ` Peter Zijlstra
2014-04-10 21:30 ` Paul E. McKenney
2014-04-10 22:02 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-10 15:38 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-11 21:39 ` Daniel Bristot de Oliveira [this message]
2014-04-10 17:42 ` [RFC PATCH RT V2] " Steven Rostedt
2014-04-11 2:35 ` [RFC PATCH RT V3] " Steven Rostedt
2014-04-11 12:47 ` Carsten Emde
2014-04-11 13:25 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-17 23:26 ` [RFC PATCH RT V4] " Steven Rostedt
2014-04-18 8:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2014-04-24 17:52 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-14 9:55 ` [RFC PATCH RT] " Ingo Molnar
2014-04-14 13:34 ` Steven Rostedt
2014-04-14 14:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
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=534860FD.3030702@gmail.com \
--to=danielbristot@gmail.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=umgwanakikbuti@gmail.com \
--cc=williams@redhat.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).