From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753952Ab3KEBoH (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:44:07 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:30282 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732Ab3KEBoF (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Nov 2013 20:44:05 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,535,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="403646835" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to rwlock_t From: Tim Chen To: Yuanhan Liu Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , Davidlohr Bueso , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Rik van Riel , Peter Zijlstra , Michel Lespinasse In-Reply-To: <20131104035920.GH30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1383292467-28922-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <20131101080135.GB25547@gmail.com> <20131101081159.GB12829@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20131101082146.GA27021@gmail.com> <20131101101643.GC30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <1383362113.2444.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20131104035920.GH30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 17:44:00 -0800 Message-ID: <1383615840.11046.265.camel@schen9-DESK> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 (2.32.3-1.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > * Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against > > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison? > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree? > > > > > > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest > > > > version. > > > > > > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread: > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some > > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are > > > finished): > > > > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on? > > I queued jobs on 5 testboxes: > - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server > - lkp-ib03: 48 core Ivybridge server > - lkp-sb03: 32 core Sandybridge server > - lkp-nex04: 64 core NHM server > - lkp-a04: Atom server > > > > > > > > > > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d > > > ------------------------ ------------------------ > > > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > > > +4.3% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test > > > +2.2% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared > > > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > > > > > > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what > > these percentages represent? > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d > ------------------------ ------------------------ > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > .... > .... > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression > at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance > optimizations patch set. Yunahan, thanks for the data. This I assume is with the entire rwsem v8 patchset. Any idea of the run variation on the workload? Tim > > "brickland1/micro/aim7/shared" tells the testbox(brickland1) and testcase: > shared workfile of aim7. > > The last line tell what field we are comparing, and it's > "aim7.2000.jobs-per-min" in this case. 2000 means 2000 users in aim7. > > > Are they anon vma rwsem + optimistic > > spinning patches vs anon vma rwlock? > > I tested "[PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations" only. > > > > > Also, I see your running aim7, you might be interested in some of the > > results I found when trying out Ingo's rwlock conversion patch on a > > largish 80 core system: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/29/280 > > Besides aim7, I also tested dbench, hackbench, netperf, pigz. And as you > can image and see from the data, aim7 benifit most from the anon_vma > optimization stuff due to high contention of anon_vma lock. > > Thanks. > > --yliu >