Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression

[Xing Zhengjun]

On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
> On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
> > Hi Trond,
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂ I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for 
> > analyzing the issue.
>
> Ping...

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:
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ iterations: 20x
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ nr_threads: 64t
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ disk: 1BRD_48G
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ fs: xfs
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ fs2: nfsv4
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ filesize: 4M
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ test_size: 80G
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 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:
> > ÂÂ e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()")
> > ÂÂ 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use iov_iter()")
> >
> > e791f8e9380d945e 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291
> > ---------------- ---------------------------
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ %stddevÂÂÂÂ %changeÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ %stddev
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ \ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ |ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ \
> > ÂÂÂÂ 527.29ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ -22.6%ÂÂÂÂ 407.96ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ fsmark.files_per_sec
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.97 Â 11%ÂÂÂÂÂ +0.9ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.88 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.smp_apic_timer_interrupt.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +0.9ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.93 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_write_xmit.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.11 Â 10%ÂÂÂÂÂ +0.9ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.05 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.apic_timer_interrupt.cpuidle_enter_state.do_idle.cpu_startup_entry.start_secondary 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.29 ÂÂ 2%ÂÂÂÂÂ +1.2ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.46 ÂÂ 7% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.svc_recv.nfsd.kthread.ret_from_fork
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.61 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.1ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 12.70 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.27 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.1ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 12.40 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂ 34.52 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 37.78 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
> > ÂÂÂÂÂ 34.52 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 37.78 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.41 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.44 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.54 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.30 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.7ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.02 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.30 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.7ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.02 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.81 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.59 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work.worker_thread 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.80 ÂÂ 3%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.59 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule.process_one_work 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.73 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.54 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute.rpc_async_schedule 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.72 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.54 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit.__rpc_execute 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +5.4ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.42 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +5.5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.52 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +5.5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.53 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg.xs_sendpages.xs_tcp_send_request.xprt_transmit.call_transmit 
> >
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.61 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.1ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 12.70 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.worker_thread
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.27 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.1ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 12.40 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.process_one_work
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.19ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.2ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.40 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms
> > ÂÂÂÂÂ 34.53 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 37.78 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
> > ÂÂÂÂÂ 34.52 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 37.78 ÂÂ 2% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kthread
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.46 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memcpy_from_page
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.00ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.6ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 3.56 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._copy_from_iter_full
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.47 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.7ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.18 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__rpc_execute
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 2.30 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.7ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.02 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rpc_async_schedule
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.90 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.67 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.call_transmit
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.89 ÂÂ 3%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.66 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xprt_transmit
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.82 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.62 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_tcp_send_request
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.81 ÂÂ 4%ÂÂÂÂÂ +3.8ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.62 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xs_sendpages
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.21 Â 17%ÂÂÂÂÂ +5.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.48 ÂÂ 4% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg_locked
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.25 Â 18%ÂÂÂÂÂ +5.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.59 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tcp_sendmsg
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 0.26 Â 16%ÂÂÂÂÂ +5.3ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 5.60 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.19 ÂÂ 5%ÂÂÂÂÂ +0.5ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 1.68 ÂÂ 3% 
> > perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_page_from_freelist
> > ÂÂÂÂÂÂ 6.10ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ +3.2ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ 9.27 ÂÂ 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:
> > > ÂÂÂ e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()")
> > > ÂÂÂ 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