From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: axboe@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] max-sectors-2.6.9-rc1-bk14-A0
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:38:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040908123821.GA17953@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040908044328.46eec88b.akpm@osdl.org>
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> Still sounds a bit odd. How many cachelines can that CPU fetch in 8
> usecs? Several tens at least?
the CPU in question is a 600 MHz C3, so it should be dozens. Considering
a conservative 200nsec cacheline-fetch latency and 8 nsecs per byte
bursted - so for a 32-byte cacheline it could take 264 nsecs. So with
... ~8 cachelines touched that could only explain 2-3 usec of overhead.
The bio itself is not layed out optimally: the bio and the vector are on
two different cachelines plus we have the buffer_head too (in the ext3
case) - all on different cachelines.
but the latency does happen and it happens even with tracing turned
completely off.
The main overhead is the completion path for a single page, which goes
like:
__end_that_request_first()
bio_endio()
end_bio_bh_io_sync()
journal_end_buffer_io_sync()
unlock_buffer()
wake_up_buffer()
bio_put()
bio_destructor()
mempool_free()
mempool_free_slab()
kmem_cache_free()
mempool_free()
mempool_free_slab()
kmem_cache_free()
this is quite fat just from an instruction count POV - 14 functions with
at least 20 instructions in each function, amounting to ~300
instructions per iteration - that alone is quite an icache footprint
assumption.
Plus we could be trashing the cache due to touching at least 3 new
cachelines per iteration - which is 192 new (dirty) cachelines for the
full completion or ~6K of new L1 cache contents. With 128 byte
cachelines it's much worse: at least 24K worth of new cache contents.
I'd suggest to at least attempt to merge bio and bio->bi_io_vec into a
single cacheline, for the simpler cases.
another detail is the SLAB's FIFO logic memmove-ing the full array:
0.184ms (+0.000ms): kmem_cache_free (mempool_free)
0.185ms (+0.000ms): cache_flusharray (kmem_cache_free)
0.185ms (+0.000ms): free_block (cache_flusharray)
0.200ms (+0.014ms): memmove (cache_flusharray)
0.200ms (+0.000ms): memcpy (memmove)
that's 14 usecs a pop and quite likely a fair amount of new dirty cache
contents.
The building of the sg-list of the next DMA request was responsible for
some of the latency as well:
0.571ms (+0.000ms): ide_build_dmatable (ide_start_dma)
0.571ms (+0.000ms): ide_build_sglist (ide_build_dmatable)
0.572ms (+0.000ms): blk_rq_map_sg (ide_build_sglist)
0.593ms (+0.021ms): do_IRQ (common_interrupt)
0.594ms (+0.000ms): mask_and_ack_8259A (do_IRQ)
this completion codeath isnt something people really profiled/measured
previously, because it's in an irqs-off hardirq path that triggers
relatively rarely. But for scheduling latencies it can be quite high.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-08 12:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-08 10:04 [patch] max-sectors-2.6.9-rc1-bk14-A0 Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 10:09 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-08 10:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 11:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-09-08 12:38 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2004-09-08 10:17 ` Jens Axboe
2004-09-08 10:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2004-09-08 11:05 ` Jens Axboe
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=20040908123821.GA17953@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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