lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [mm] f3344adf38: fxmark.hdd_btrfs_DWAL_63_bufferedio.works/sec -52.4% regression
On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 02:51:42PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > Honestly, normally if I were to get a report about "52% regression"
> > > for a commit that is supposed to optimize something, I'd just revert
> > > the commit as a case of "ok, that optimization clearly didn't work".
> > >
> > > But there is absolutely no sign that this commit is actually the
> > > culprit, or explanation for why that should be, and what could be
> > > going on.
> > >
> > > So I'm going to treat this as a "bisection failure, possibly due to
> > > random code or data layout changes". Particularly since this seems to
> > > be a 4-socket Xeon Phi machine, which I think is likely a very very
> > > fragile system if there is some odd cache layout issue.
> >
> > Oliver retested it and made it run 12 times in total, and the data
> > is consistent. We tried some other test:
> > * run other sub cases of this 'fxmark' which sees no regression
> > * change 'btrfs' to 'ext4' of this case, and no regression
> > * test on Cascadelake platform, no regression
> >
> > So the bitsection seems to be stable, though can't be explained yet.
> >
> > We checked the System map of the 2 kernels, and didn't find obvious
> > code/data alignment change, which is expected, as the commit changes
> > data structure which is usually dynamically allocated.
>
> We found with the commit some percpu related ops do have some change,
> as shown in perf
>
> old kernel
> ----------
> 1.06% 0.69% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __percpu_counter_sum - -
> 1.06% __percpu_counter_sum;need_preemptive_reclaim.part.0;__reserve_bytes;btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes;btrfs_delalloc_reserve_metadata;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;write
>
> 89.85% 88.17% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath - -
> 45.27% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;_raw_spin_lock;btrfs_block_rsv_release;btrfs_inode_rsv_release;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;write
> 44.51% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;_raw_spin_lock;__reserve_bytes;btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes;btrfs_delalloc_reserve_metadata;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe;write
>
>
> new kernel
> ----------
> 1.33% 1.14% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __percpu_counter_sum - -
> 1.33% __percpu_counter_sum;need_preemptive_reclaim.part.0;__reserve_bytes;btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes;btrfs_delalloc_reserve_metadata;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
>
> 95.95% 95.31% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath - -
> 48.56% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;_raw_spin_lock;btrfs_block_rsv_release;btrfs_inode_rsv_release;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 47.33% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath;_raw_spin_lock;__reserve_bytes;btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes;btrfs_delalloc_reserve_metadata;btrfs_buffered_write;btrfs_file_write_iter;new_sync_write;vfs_write;ksys_write;do_syscall_64;entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
>
> __percpu_counter_sum is usually costy for platform with many CPUs and
> it does rise much. It is called in fs/btrfs/space-info.c
> need_preemptive_reclaim
> ordered = percpu_counter_sum_positive(&fs_info->ordered_bytes);
> delalloc = percpu_counter_sum_positive(&fs_info->delalloc_bytes);
>
> And we did 2 experiments:
> 1. Change the percpu_counter_sum_positive() to percpu_counter_read_positive()
> which skips looping online CPUs to get the sum, inside need_preemptive_reclaim(),
> the regression is gone, and even better

Interestingly, We just got mail from Oliver about btrfs perf's 81.3%
improvement:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210325055609.GA13061@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/

which is from Josef's patch which does the same conversion of functions
of getting percpu counter.

I guess with the patch, this regression will be gone, and several other
old regressions will be gone too (Thanks Josef):
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20201104061657.GB15746@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210305083757.GF31481@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/

Thanks,
Feng

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-25 08:35    [W:0.077 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site