Re: [PATCH 1/3] sysfs directory scaling: rbtree for dirent name lookups

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@lhnet.ca> writes:

> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 07:50:58PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:31:30AM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>> > Use an rbtree in sysfs_dirent to speed up file lookup times
>> > 
>> > Systems with large numbers (tens of thousands and more) of network 
>> > interfaces stress the sysfs code in ways that make the linear search for 
>> > a name match take far too long.  Avoid this by using an rbtree.
>> 
>> What kind of speedups are you seeing here?  And do these changes cause a
>> memory increase due to the structure changes which outweigh the
>> speedups?
>
> Depends on the number of interfaces being created.  Without the patch, 
> interface creation time tends to double or worse for every 5,000-10,000 
> additional network interfaces.
>
>> What kind of test are you doing to reproduce this?
>
> I'm creating 30,000+ network interfaces, with the goal being 100,000.  
> With other hacks in the tree to get around the sysctl and procfs scaling 
> issues, as well as disabling things like NetworkManager, the results look 
> as follows:
>
> 	Interfaces	no-rb	rbtree	rbtree+list
> 	0-5,000		13.8s	14.0s	13.0s
> 	5,000-10,000	20.0s	17.4s	14.4s
> 	10,000-15,000	27.3s	24.1s	16.9s
> 	15,000-20,000	36.3s	32.2s	19.7s
> 	20,000-25,000	45.2s	40.0s	22.9s
> 	25,000-30,000	54.2s	48.2s	26.6s
> 	30,000-35,000	63.9s	54.9s	30.7s
>
> Thoughts?

Something is very weird.  I just took your no-rb numbers
and divided by the number of interfaces to see how well we are
scaling.  I got:

 	Interfaces	per-interface cost
 	5,000		0.002760s
 	10,000		0.002000s
 	15,000		0.001820s
 	20,000		0.001815s
 	25,000		0.001808s
 	30,000		0.001807s
 	35,000		0.001826s

I ran a variant of this test a long time ago and at that the
cost per interface grew with additional interfaces added.  This
jives with the fact that the fundamental cost of adding N
network interfaces to sysfs is O(N^2).

Are your numbers from your application and are they real world?
In which case they are interesting, but it would be good if
we could also have microbenchmark numbers that just measure
the sysfs costs.   If nothing else I am seeing a big startup
overhead that isn't being subtracted out that makes it hard
to see the real costs here.

Eric