Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:45:57 -0700
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc:     manfred@colorfullife.com,
        Linux Containers <containers@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru, prakash.sangappa@oracle.com,
        luto@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com,
        serge.hallyn@ubuntu.com, esyr@redhat.com, jannh@google.com,
        linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
        Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>,
        Nagarathnam Muthusamy <nagarathnam.muthusamy@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 11/11] ipc/sem: Fix semctl(..., GETPID, ...)
 between pid namespaces
Message-ID: <20180330204557.5cgyipyqawfte3ml@linux-n805>
References: <87vadmobdw.fsf_-_@xmission.com>
 <20180323191614.32489-11-ebiederm@xmission.com>
 <20180329005209.fnzr3hzvyr4oy3wi@linux-n805>
 <20180330190951.nfcdwuzp42bl2lfy@linux-n805>
 <87y3i91fxh.fsf@xmission.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87y3i91fxh.fsf@xmission.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170421 (1.8.2)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

>Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> writes:
>
>> I ran this on a 40-core (no ht) Westmere with two benchmarks. The first
>> is Manfred's sysvsem lockunlock[1] program which uses _processes_ to,
>> well, lock and unlock the semaphore. The options are a little
>> unconventional, to keep the "critical region small" and the lock+unlock
>> frequency high I added busy_in=busy_out=10. Similarly, to get the
>> worst case scenario and have everyone update the same semaphore, a single
>> one is used. Here are the results (pretty low stddev from run to run)
>> for doing 100,000 lock+unlock.
>>
>> - 1 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 0.110638 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 0.120144 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 2 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 0.379756 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 0.477778 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 4 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 6.749710 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 4.651872 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 8 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>>        total execution time: 5.558404 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 7.143329 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 16 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 9.016398 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 9.412055 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 32 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 9.694451 seconds for 100000 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 9.990451 seconds for 100000 loops
>>
>> - 64 proc:
>>   * vanilla
>> 	total execution time: 9.844984 seconds for 100032 loops
>>   * dirty
>> 	total execution time: 10.016464 seconds for 100032 loops
>>
>> Lower task counts show pretty massive performance hits of ~9%, ~25%
>> and ~30% for single, two and four/eight processes. As more are added
>> I guess the overhead tends to disappear as for one you have a lot
>> more locking contention going on.
>
>Can you check your notes on the 4 process case?  As I read the 4 process
>case above it is ~30% improvement.  Either that is a typo or there is the
>potential for quite a bit of noise in the test case.

Yeah, sorry that was a typo. Unlike the second benchmark I didn't have
this one automated but it's always the vanilla kernel that outperforms
the dirty.

Thanks,
Davidlohr