From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8B1C433FF for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 07:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4857F21BF2 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 2019 07:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2387551AbfHGH4a (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2019 03:56:30 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:62279 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727413AbfHGH43 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Aug 2019 03:56:29 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga006.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.20]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Aug 2019 00:56:28 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,356,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="374318653" Received: from xingzhen-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.196.126]) ([10.239.196.126]) by fmsmga006.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 07 Aug 2019 00:56:25 -0700 Subject: Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression From: Xing Zhengjun To: Trond Myklebust , "rong.a.chen@intel.com" Cc: "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "lkp@01.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20190520055434.GZ31424@shao2-debian> <9a07c589f955e5af5acc0fa09a16a3256089e764.camel@hammerspace.com> <9753a9a4a82943f6aacc2bfb0f93efc5f96bcaa5.camel@hammerspace.com> <2bbe636a-14f1-4592-d1f9-a9f765a02939@linux.intel.com> <81fb0e7d-1879-9267-83da-4671fec50920@linux.intel.com> <491bd283-f607-3111-32ae-07294eda123d@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: <081447bc-69c5-aa45-8f85-29add0b83c15@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 15:56:25 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <491bd283-f607-3111-32ae-07294eda123d@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: > > > On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >> Hi Trond, >> >>      I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for >> analyzing the issue. > > Ping... ping... > >> >> >> In testcase: fsmark >> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz >> with 384G memory >> with following parameters: >> >>          iterations: 20x >>          nr_threads: 64t >>          disk: 1BRD_48G >>          fs: xfs >>          fs2: nfsv4 >>          filesize: 4M >>          test_size: 80G >>          sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose >>          cpufreq_governor: performance >> >> test-description: The fsmark is a file system benchmark to test >> synchronous write workloads, for example, mail servers workload. >> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/fsmark/ >> >> commit: >>    e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()") >>    0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use iov_iter()") >> >> e791f8e9380d945e 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291 >> ---------------- --------------------------- >>           %stddev     %change         %stddev >>               \          |                \ >>      527.29           -22.6%     407.96        fsmark.files_per_sec >>        1.97 ± 11%      +0.9        2.88 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.smp_apic_timer_interrupt.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry >> >>        0.00            +0.9        0.93 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_write_xmit.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages >> >>        2.11 ± 10%      +0.9        3.05 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary >> >>        5.29 ±  2%      +1.2        6.46 ±  7% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.svc_recv.nfsd.kthread.ret_from_fork >>        9.61 ±  5%      +3.1       12.70 ±  2% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >>        9.27 ±  5%      +3.1       12.40 ±  2% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >> >>       34.52 ±  4%      +3.3       37.78 ±  2% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork >>       34.52 ±  4%      +3.3       37.78 ±  2% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork >>        0.00            +3.4        3.41 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg >> >>        0.00            +3.4        3.44 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg >> >>        0.00            +3.5        3.54 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages >> >>        2.30 ±  5%      +3.7        6.02 ±  3% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread >> >>        2.30 ±  5%      +3.7        6.02 ±  3% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork >> >>        1.81 ±  4%      +3.8        5.59 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread >> >>        1.80 ±  3%      +3.8        5.59 ±  3% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work >> >>        1.73 ±  4%      +3.8        5.54 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule >> >>        1.72 ±  4%      +3.8        5.54 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute >> >>        0.00            +5.4        5.42 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request >> >>        0.00            +5.5        5.52 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit >> >>        0.00            +5.5        5.53 ±  4% >> perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit >> >>        9.61 ±  5%      +3.1       12.70 ±  2% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.worker_thread >>        9.27 ±  5%      +3.1       12.40 ±  2% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.process_one_work >>        6.19            +3.2        9.40 ±  4% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms >>       34.53 ±  4%      +3.3       37.78 ±  2% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork >>       34.52 ±  4%      +3.3       37.78 ±  2% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kthread >>        0.00            +3.5        3.46 ±  4% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page >>        0.00            +3.6        3.56 ±  4% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full >>        2.47 ±  4%      +3.7        6.18 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute >>        2.30 ±  5%      +3.7        6.02 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule >>        1.90 ±  4%      +3.8        5.67 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.call_transmit >>        1.89 ±  3%      +3.8        5.66 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit >>        1.82 ±  4%      +3.8        5.62 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request >>        1.81 ±  4%      +3.8        5.62 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages >>        0.21 ± 17%      +5.3        5.48 ±  4% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked >>        0.25 ± 18%      +5.3        5.59 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg >>        0.26 ± 16%      +5.3        5.60 ±  3% >> perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg >>        1.19 ±  5%      +0.5        1.68 ±  3% >> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_page_from_freelist >>        6.10            +3.2        9.27 ±  4% >> perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms >> >> >> On 7/9/2019 10:39 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: >>> Hi Trond, >>> >>> On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>> I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As >>>> far as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be >>>> entirely contained in the NUMA section of your results. >>>> IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead due to NUMA. I've >>>> been asking whether or not that is a correct interpretation of the >>>> numbers you published. >>> Thanks for your feedback. I used the same hardware and the same test >>> parameters to test the two commits: >>>     e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()") >>>     0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use >>> iov_iter()") >>> >>> If it is caused by NUMA, why only commit 0472e47660 throughput is >>> decreased? The filesystem we test is NFS, commit 0472e47660 is >>> related with the network, could you help to check if have any other >>> clues for the regression. Thanks. >>> >> > -- Zhengjun Xing