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 5847BC7618B for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:17:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C8FA218B0 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 05:17:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726070AbfGXFR5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 01:17:57 -0400 Received: from mga18.intel.com ([134.134.136.126]:3523 "EHLO mga18.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725861AbfGXFR5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 01:17:57 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by orsmga106.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Jul 2019 22:17:56 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,300,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="189011918" Received: from xingzhen-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.197.185]) ([10.239.197.185]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 23 Jul 2019 22:17:54 -0700 Subject: Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression From: Xing Zhengjun To: Trond Myklebust , "rong.a.chen@intel.com" Cc: "lkp@01.org" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.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> Message-ID: <491bd283-f607-3111-32ae-07294eda123d@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:17:54 +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: 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 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote: > Hi Trond, > >     I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for > analyzing the issue. Ping... > > > 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