Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability

["Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 03:03:38PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 06/18/2014 02:48 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:04:28PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> Hi Paul,
> >>
> >> I'm seeing a regression when comparing 3.15 to Linus's current tree.
> >> I'm using Anton Blanchard's will-it-scale "open1" test which creates a
> >> bunch of processes and does open()/close() in a tight loop:
> >>
> >>> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale/blob/master/tests/open1.c
> >>
> >> At about 50 cores worth of processes, 3.15 and the pre-3.16 code start
> >> to diverge, with 3.15 scaling better:
> >>
> >> 	http://sr71.net/~dave/intel/3.16-open1regression-0.png
> >>
> >> Some profiles point to a big increase in contention inside slub.c's
> >> get_partial_node() (the allocation side of the slub code) causing the
> >> regression.  That particular open() test is known to do a lot of slab
> >> operations.  But, the odd part is that the slub code hasn't been touched
> >> much.
> > 
> > Coming back to this...  If the original was stalling RCU grace periods
> > for the duration of the test, then it would also be deferring any
> > freeing until after the end of the test.
> 
> I run the test for pretty long periods of time, and I don't see any
> consistent growth in the memory used.  I'd expect if we were fully
> stalling RCU grace periods that we'd see memory usage grow too.
> 
> Looking at rcu_sched/rcugp at 1-second intervals, we can see the gpnum
> going up consistently (incrementing at a rate of about 15/second).
> 
> Does that rule out the possibility of stalling them until after the test?

That it does!

> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:32 PDT 2014: completed=7707 gpnum=7708 age=14 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:33 PDT 2014: completed=7723 gpnum=7724 age=14 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:34 PDT 2014: completed=7739 gpnum=7740 age=19 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:35 PDT 2014: completed=7756 gpnum=7757 age=3 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:36 PDT 2014: completed=7771 gpnum=7772 age=12 max=123, 5
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:37 PDT 2014: completed=7787 gpnum=7788 age=7 max=123, 5
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:39 PDT 2014: completed=7802 gpnum=7803 age=14 max=123, 5
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:40 PDT 2014: completed=7816 gpnum=7817 age=15 max=123, 5
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:41 PDT 2014: completed=7831 gpnum=7832 age=15 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:42 PDT 2014: completed=7847 gpnum=7848 age=15 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:43 PDT 2014: completed=7860 gpnum=7861 age=15 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:44 PDT 2014: completed=7877 gpnum=7878 age=15 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:45 PDT 2014: completed=7892 gpnum=7893 age=17 max=123, 6
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:46 PDT 2014: completed=7906 gpnum=7907 age=17 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:47 PDT 2014: completed=7920 gpnum=7921 age=19 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:48 PDT 2014: completed=7936 gpnum=7937 age=19 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:49 PDT 2014: completed=7954 gpnum=7955 age=2 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:50 PDT 2014: completed=7970 gpnum=7971 age=0 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:51 PDT 2014: completed=7985 gpnum=7986 age=6 max=123, 7
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:52 PDT 2014: completed=8000 gpnum=8001 age=7 max=123, 8
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:53 PDT 2014: completed=8015 gpnum=8016 age=8 max=123, 8
> > Wed Jun 18 14:46:54 PDT 2014: completed=8031 gpnum=8032 age=10 max=123, 7

Thank you for checking!

							Thanx, Paul