From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
To: "Sang, Oliver" <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@amazon.co.jp>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"lkp@lists.01.org" <lkp@lists.01.org>, lkp <lkp@intel.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
"zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com" <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
"Yin, Fengwei" <fengwei.yin@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [af_unix] afd20b9290: stress-ng.sockdiag.ops_per_sec -26.3% regression
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 08:25:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220622002515.GA4273@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211219083847.GA14057@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
Hi,
On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 04:38:47PM +0800, Sang, Oliver wrote:
>
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -26.3% regression of stress-ng.sockdiag.ops_per_sec due to commit:
Some update on this,
We did some further check, and commit afd20b9290 seems to be a nice
optimization as it replaces a big lock with many split locks, which
could reduce lock contention and is also shown in the performance
data from the commit log.
We first thought this strange change is also related to underlying
cache alignment changes, and we tried disabling HW cache prefetch,
forcing 'data' section aligned (patch [1]), 'bss' section aligned
(patch [2]), but the regression stays.
Then we did an experiment, afd20b9290 replace one lock with
'2 * UNIX_HASH_SIZE' locks, and we first changed the UNIX_HASH_SIZE
from 256 to 64 or 32, and then applied afd20b9290, and found the
regression is reduced to -5.7%(64) and -1.6%(32). So this regression
is related with the commit.
From the original profile
> 97.56 +0.5 98.04 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.osq_lock.__mutex_lock.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg
> 99.22 +0.5 99.70 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg.___sys_sendmsg
> 99.19 +0.5 99.68 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg
> 98.41 +0.5 98.90 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__mutex_lock.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg
The hottest spot is not the 'unix_table_locks' touched by afd20b9290,
which is hard to explain. One guess is that loosening one lock makes
another lock contention in critical path more severe, but we don't
have data to prove it.
[1]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220426071523.71923-1-feng.tang@intel.com/
[2]. https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220613020943.GD75244@shbuild999.sh.intel.com/
Thanks,
Feng
> commit: afd20b9290e184c203fe22f2d6b80dc7127ba724 ("af_unix: Replace the big lock with small locks.")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>
> in testcase: stress-ng
> on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_threads: 100%
> testtime: 60s
> class: network
> test: sockdiag
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0xd000280
>
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> To reproduce:
>
> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> cd lkp-tests
> sudo bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml file for lkp run
> sudo bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
>
> # if come across any failure that blocks the test,
> # please remove ~/.lkp and /lkp dir to run from a clean state.
>
> =========================================================================================
> class/compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/testtime/ucode:
> network/gcc-9/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/100%/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp6/sockdiag/stress-ng/60s/0xd000280
>
> commit:
> e6b4b87389 ("af_unix: Save hash in sk_hash.")
> afd20b9290 ("af_unix: Replace the big lock with small locks.")
>
> e6b4b873896f0e92 afd20b9290e184c203fe22f2d6b
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 3.129e+08 -26.3% 2.306e+08 stress-ng.sockdiag.ops
> 5214640 -26.3% 3842782 stress-ng.sockdiag.ops_per_sec
> 82895 -6.9% 77178 stress-ng.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 103737 -9.5% 93892 stress-ng.time.voluntary_context_switches
> 7067 -6.3% 6620 vmstat.system.cs
> 0.05 -0.0 0.04 ± 6% mpstat.cpu.all.soft%
> 0.13 ± 3% -0.0 0.12 ± 5% mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
> 1783836 ± 7% -21.6% 1397649 ± 12% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
> 1689477 ± 8% -22.9% 1303128 ± 13% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
> 894897 ± 22% +46.6% 1312222 ± 11% turbostat.C1E
> 3.85 ± 55% +3.5 7.33 ± 10% turbostat.C1E%
> 2451882 ± 4% -24.3% 1855676 ± 2% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
> 2501404 ± 3% -23.8% 1905161 ± 3% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
> 2437526 -24.1% 1849165 ± 3% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
> 2503693 -23.5% 1915338 ± 3% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
> 7977 ± 19% -22.6% 6178 ± 8% softirqs.CPU2.RCU
> 7989 ± 25% -23.4% 6121 ± 3% softirqs.CPU25.RCU
> 8011 ± 24% -26.8% 5862 ± 3% softirqs.CPU8.RCU
> 890963 ± 3% -17.4% 735738 softirqs.RCU
> 74920 -3.6% 72233 proc-vmstat.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> 5007343 -23.7% 3821593 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> 4891675 -24.2% 3705934 proc-vmstat.numa_local
> 5007443 -23.7% 3821701 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
> 4796850 -24.7% 3610677 proc-vmstat.pgfree
> 0.71 ± 17% -41.1% 0.42 perf-stat.i.MPKI
> 0.12 ± 12% -0.0 0.10 ± 8% perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
> 10044516 ± 13% -23.6% 7678759 ± 3% perf-stat.i.cache-misses
> 42758000 ± 6% -28.5% 30580693 perf-stat.i.cache-references
> 6920 -5.9% 6510 perf-stat.i.context-switches
> 571.08 ± 2% -13.4% 494.31 ± 2% perf-stat.i.cpu-migrations
> 39356 ± 12% +29.2% 50865 ± 3% perf-stat.i.cycles-between-cache-misses
> 0.01 ± 36% -0.0 0.00 ± 24% perf-stat.i.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 0.01 ± 23% -0.0 0.00 ± 14% perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
> 8.447e+08 +27.0% 1.073e+09 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores
> 13.36 -2.2% 13.07 perf-stat.i.major-faults
> 364.56 ± 9% -24.9% 273.60 perf-stat.i.metric.K/sec
> 350.63 +0.7% 353.23 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec
> 87.88 +1.4 89.23 perf-stat.i.node-load-miss-rate%
> 1381985 ± 12% -27.7% 999393 ± 3% perf-stat.i.node-load-misses
> 198989 ± 6% -31.9% 135458 ± 4% perf-stat.i.node-loads
> 4305132 -27.4% 3124590 perf-stat.i.node-store-misses
> 581796 ± 5% -25.6% 432807 ± 3% perf-stat.i.node-stores
> 0.46 ± 5% -28.7% 0.33 perf-stat.overall.MPKI
> 39894 ± 12% +28.6% 51310 ± 3% perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
> 0.01 ± 22% -0.0 0.00 ± 12% perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
> 9916145 ± 13% -23.8% 7560589 ± 3% perf-stat.ps.cache-misses
> 42385546 ± 5% -28.7% 30225277 perf-stat.ps.cache-references
> 6786 -5.9% 6385 perf-stat.ps.context-switches
> 562.65 ± 2% -13.5% 486.73 ± 2% perf-stat.ps.cpu-migrations
> 8.314e+08 +26.8% 1.055e+09 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
> 1359293 ± 11% -27.7% 982331 ± 3% perf-stat.ps.node-load-misses
> 205280 ± 6% -33.3% 136979 ± 5% perf-stat.ps.node-loads
> 4237942 -27.5% 3070934 perf-stat.ps.node-store-misses
> 585102 ± 5% -26.6% 429702 ± 3% perf-stat.ps.node-stores
> 5.844e+12 +0.9% 5.897e+12 perf-stat.total.instructions
> 99.26 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.sendmsg
> 99.25 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.sendmsg
> 99.25 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__sys_sendmsg.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.sendmsg
> 99.26 +0.5 99.73 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sendmsg
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.____sys_sendmsg.___sys_sendmsg.__sys_sendmsg.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg.___sys_sendmsg.__sys_sendmsg.do_syscall_64
> 99.25 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.___sys_sendmsg.__sys_sendmsg.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.sendmsg
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg.___sys_sendmsg.__sys_sendmsg
> 97.56 +0.5 98.04 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.osq_lock.__mutex_lock.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg
> 99.22 +0.5 99.70 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg.___sys_sendmsg
> 99.19 +0.5 99.68 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg.____sys_sendmsg
> 98.41 +0.5 98.90 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__mutex_lock.sock_diag_rcv.netlink_unicast.netlink_sendmsg.sock_sendmsg
> 0.48 -0.4 0.07 ± 5% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.recvmsg
> 0.46 ± 2% -0.4 0.06 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.___sys_recvmsg
> 0.47 ± 2% -0.4 0.07 ± 6% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sys_recvmsg
> 0.45 -0.4 0.06 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.____sys_recvmsg
> 1.14 -0.4 0.76 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.netlink_dump
> 1.09 -0.4 0.73 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.unix_diag_dump
> 0.66 -0.3 0.37 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock
> 0.26 ± 2% -0.1 0.19 ± 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sk_diag_fill
> 0.07 ± 5% -0.0 0.04 ± 57% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_socket
> 0.07 ± 5% -0.0 0.04 ± 57% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sys_socket
> 0.07 -0.0 0.04 ± 57% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__close
> 0.12 ± 4% -0.0 0.08 ± 5% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.memset_erms
> 0.11 ± 4% -0.0 0.08 ± 5% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.nla_put
> 0.08 ± 5% -0.0 0.06 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__nlmsg_put
> 0.08 ± 5% -0.0 0.05 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__socket
> 0.08 -0.0 0.06 ± 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__nla_put
> 0.07 -0.0 0.05 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__nla_reserve
> 0.07 ± 5% -0.0 0.05 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_core
> 0.08 ± 5% -0.0 0.06 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__softirqentry_text_start
> 0.07 -0.0 0.05 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_do_batch
> 0.06 ± 7% -0.0 0.05 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_i_ino
> 99.89 +0.0 99.92 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 99.89 +0.0 99.92 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64
> 0.00 +0.1 0.08 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock
> 99.26 +0.5 99.73 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sendmsg
> 99.25 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sys_sendmsg
> 99.25 +0.5 99.72 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.___sys_sendmsg
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.____sys_sendmsg
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg
> 99.24 +0.5 99.71 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.netlink_sendmsg
> 99.22 +0.5 99.70 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.netlink_unicast
> 97.59 +0.5 98.08 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.osq_lock
> 99.19 +0.5 99.68 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_diag_rcv
> 98.41 +0.5 98.90 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__mutex_lock
> 0.12 ± 5% -0.0 0.08 ± 5% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.unix_diag_dump
> 0.11 -0.0 0.08 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.memset_erms
> 0.00 +0.1 0.06 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__raw_callee_save___native_queued_spin_unlock
> 0.28 ± 5% +0.1 0.35 ± 2% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock
> 97.23 +0.5 97.72 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.osq_lock
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-22 0:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-12-19 8:38 kernel test robot
2022-06-22 0:25 ` Feng Tang [this message]
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=20220622002515.GA4273@shbuild999.sh.intel.com \
--to=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=kuniyu@amazon.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.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