linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aquini@redhat.com,
	lwoodman@redhat.com, jeremy@goop.org,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:27:29 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689HBx357M+7ge3SQ_xtnyiTKPY=1v0oR+DS9EBiak-2BQg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1356549008.20133.20856.camel@edumazet-glaptop>

On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> I did some tests with your patches with following configuration :
>
> tc qdisc add dev eth0 root htb r2q 1000 default 3
> (to force a contention on qdisc lock, even with a multi queue net
> device)
>
> and 24 concurrent "netperf -t UDP_STREAM -H other_machine -- -m 128"
>
> Machine : 2 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5660  @ 2.80GHz
> (24 threads), and a fast NIC (10Gbps)
>
> Resulting in a 13 % regression (676 Mbits -> 595 Mbits)

I've been trying to use this workload on a similar machine. I am
getting some confusing results however:

with 24 concurrent netperf -t UDP_STREAM -H $target -- -m 128 -R 1 , I
am seeing some non-trivial run-to-run performance variation - about 5%
in v3.7 baseline, but very significant after applying rik's 3 patches.
my last few runs gave me results of 890.92, 1073.74, 963.13, 1234.41,
754.18, 893.82. This is generally better than what I'm getting with
baseline, but the variance is huge (which is somewhat surprising given
that rik's patches don't have the issue of hash collisions). Also,
this is significant in that I am not seeing the regression you were
observing with just these 3 patches.

If I add a 1 second delay in the netperf command line (netperf -t
UDP_STREAM -s 1 -H lpk18 -- -m 128 -R 1), I am seeing a very constant
660 Mbps result, but then I don't see any benefit from applying rik's
patches. I have no explanation for these results, but I am getting
them very consistently...

> In this workload we have at least two contended spinlocks, with
> different delays. (spinlocks are not held for the same duration)

Just to confirm, I believe you are refering to qdisc->q.lock and
qdisc->busylock ?

-- 
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-12-29 10:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-12-21 23:49 [RFC PATCH 0/3] x86,smp: make ticket spinlock proportional backoff w/ auto tuning Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:50 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] x86,smp: move waiting on contended lock out of line Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:05   ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  4:40   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22  4:48     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 22:52   ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:07   ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:14     ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:47       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  4:44   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-23 22:55   ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-21 23:51 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] x86,smp: auto tune spinlock backoff delay factor Rik van Riel
2012-12-21 23:56   ` [RFC PATCH 3/3 -v2] " Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  0:18     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  2:43       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  0:48     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  2:57       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:29     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  3:44       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:33     ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:50       ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-26 19:10         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:27           ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-26 19:51           ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27  6:07             ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-27 14:27               ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 14:35                 ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-27 18:41                   ` Jan Beulich
2012-12-27 19:09                     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-03  9:05                       ` Jan Beulich
2013-01-03 13:24                         ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 13:35                           ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 15:32                             ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 16:10                               ` Eric Dumazet
2013-01-03 16:45                                 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-01-03 17:54                                   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 18:49                   ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-27 19:31                     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-29  0:42                       ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-29 10:27           ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2013-01-03 18:17             ` Eric Dumazet
2012-12-22  0:47   ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] " David Daney
2012-12-22  2:51     ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-22  3:49       ` Steven Rostedt
2012-12-22  3:58         ` Rik van Riel
2012-12-23 23:08           ` Rafael Aquini
2012-12-22  5:42   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-12-22 14:32     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02  0:06 ` ticket spinlock proportional backoff experiments Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02  0:09   ` [PATCH 1/2] x86,smp: simplify __ticket_spin_lock Michel Lespinasse
2013-01-02 15:31     ` Rik van Riel
2013-01-02  0:10   ` [PATCH 2/2] x86,smp: proportional backoff for ticket spinlocks Michel Lespinasse

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='CANN689HBx357M+7ge3SQ_xtnyiTKPY=1v0oR+DS9EBiak-2BQg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=walken@google.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=aquini@redhat.com \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=jeremy@goop.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lwoodman@redhat.com \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    --cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=therbert@google.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).