Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 15:45:19 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
        Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Subject: Re: [bisected] pre-3.16 regression on open() scalability
Message-ID: <20140613224519.GV4581@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reply-To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com
References: <539B594C.8070004@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <539B594C.8070004@intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

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.
> 
> So, I bisected it down to this:
> 
> > commit ac1bea85781e9004da9b3e8a4b097c18492d857c
> > Author: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Date:   Sun Mar 16 21:36:25 2014 -0700
> > 
> >     sched,rcu: Make cond_resched() report RCU quiescent states
> 
> Specifically, if I raise RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM, things get back to their
> 3.15 levels.
> 
> Could the additional RCU quiescent states be causing us to be doing more
> RCU frees that we were before, and getting less benefit from the lock
> batching that RCU normally provides?

Quite possibly.  One way to check would be to use the debugfs files
rcu/*/rcugp, which give a count of grace periods since boot for each
RCU flavor.  Here "*" is rcu_preempt for CONFIG_PREEMPT and rcu_sched
for !CONFIG_PREEMPT.

Another possibility is that someone is invoking cond_reched() in an
incredibly tight loop.

> The top RCU functions in the profiles are as follows:
> 
> > 3.15.0-xxx:     2.58%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] file_free_rcu                             
> > 3.15.0-xxx:     2.45%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] __d_lookup_rcu                            
> > 3.15.0-xxx:     2.41%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] rcu_process_callbacks                     
> > 3.15.0-xxx:     1.87%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] __call_rcu.constprop.10                   
> 
> > 3.16.0-rc0:     2.68%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] rcu_process_callbacks                     
> > 3.16.0-rc0:     2.68%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] file_free_rcu                             
> > 3.16.0-rc0:     1.55%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __call_rcu.constprop.10                   
> > 3.16.0-rc0:     1.28%  open1_processes  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] __d_lookup_rcu                     
> 
> With everything else equal, we'd expect to see all of these _higher_ in
> the profiles on a the faster kernel (3.15) since it has more RCU work to do.
> 
> But, they're all _roughly_ the same.  __d_lookup_rcu went up in the
> profile on the fast one (3.15) probably because there _were_ more
> lookups happening there.
> 
> rcu_process_callbacks makes me syspicious.  It went up slightly
> (probably in the noise), but it _should_ have dropped due to there being
> less RCU work to do.
> 
> This supports the theory that there are more callbacks happening than
> before, causing more slab lock contention, which is the actual trigger
> for the performance drop.
> 
> I also hacked in an interface to make RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM a tunable.
> Making it huge instantly makes my test go fast, and dropping it to 256
> instantly makes it slow.  Some brief toying with it shows that
> RCU_COND_RESCHED_LIM has to be about 100,000 before performance gets
> back to where it was before.

That is way bigger than I would expect.  My bet is that someone is
invoking cond_resched() in a 10s-of-nanoseconds tight loop.

But please feel free to send along your patch, CCing LKML.  Longer
term, I probably need to take a more algorithmic approach, but what
you have will be useful to benchmarkers until then.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/