From: Anton Starikov <ant.starikov@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 15618] New: 2.6.18->2.6.32->2.6.33 huge regression in performance
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:42:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <E12F97B3-58AE-4F5E-A2D5-EC43C40562A9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1269371876.5109.161.camel@twins>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]
I attach here callgraph.
Also I checked kernel source, actual code which was compiled is exactly what should be after patches.
Do I miss something?
[-- Attachment #2: callg.txt.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 166398 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 2538 bytes --]
On Mar 23, 2010, at 8:17 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 20:14 +0100, Anton Starikov wrote:
>> On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:45 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It shows a very brutal amount of page fault invoked mmap_sem spinning
>>>> overhead.
>>>
>>> Isn't this already fixed? It's the same old "x86-64 rwsemaphores are using
>>> the shit-for-brains generic version" thing, and it's fixed by
>>>
>>> 1838ef1 x86-64, rwsem: 64-bit xadd rwsem implementation
>>> 5d0b723 x86: clean up rwsem type system
>>> 59c33fa x86-32: clean up rwsem inline asm statements
>>>
>>> NOTE! None of those are in 2.6.33 - they were merged afterwards. But they
>>> are in 2.6.34-rc1 (and obviously current -git). So Anton would have to
>>> compile his own kernel to test his load.
>>
>>
>> Applied mentioned patches. Things didn't improve too much.
>>
>> before:
>> prog: Total exploration time 9.880 real 60.620 user 76.970 sys
>>
>> after:
>> prog: Total exploration time 9.020 real 59.430 user 66.190 sys
>>
>> perf report:
>>
>> 38.58% prog [kernel] [k] _spin_lock_irqsave
>> 37.42% prog ./prog [.] DBSLLlookup_ret
>> 6.22% prog ./prog [.] SuperFastHash
>> 3.65% prog /lib64/libc-2.11.1.so [.] __GI_memcpy
>> 2.09% prog ./anderson.6.dve2C [.] get_successors
>> 1.75% prog [kernel] [k] clear_page_c
>> 1.73% prog ./prog [.] index_next_dfs
>> 0.71% prog [kernel] [k] handle_mm_fault
>> 0.38% prog ./prog [.] cb_hook
>> 0.33% prog ./prog [.] get_local
>> 0.32% prog [kernel] [k] page_fault
>
> Could you verify with a callgraph profile what that spin_lock_irqsave()
> is? If those rwsem patches were successfull mmap_sem should no longer
> have a spinlock to content on, in which case it might be another lock.
>
> If not, something went wrong with backporting those patches.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-23 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-15618-10286@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
2010-03-23 14:22 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-23 17:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-23 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-23 17:57 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 18:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-23 18:03 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 18:21 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-23 18:25 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 19:22 ` Robin Holt
2010-03-23 19:30 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 19:49 ` Robin Holt
2010-03-23 19:57 ` Robin Holt
2010-03-23 19:50 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 19:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-24 16:40 ` Roland Dreier
2010-03-26 3:24 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 19:14 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 19:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-03-23 19:42 ` Anton Starikov [this message]
2010-03-23 19:54 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-23 20:43 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 23:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-23 23:19 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 23:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-23 23:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-03-24 0:03 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-24 2:15 ` Andi Kleen
2010-03-24 3:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-04-19 18:19 ` Greg KH
2010-03-23 18:13 ` Andrew Morton
2010-03-23 18:19 ` Anton Starikov
2010-03-23 18:27 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-03-23 21:19 ` Anton Starikov
2010-04-02 18:57 ` Lee Schermerhorn
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=E12F97B3-58AE-4F5E-A2D5-EC43C40562A9@gmail.com \
--to=ant.starikov@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org \
--cc=bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/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