mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Latest vfs scalability patch
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 14:49:41 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091006124941.GS5216@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091006122623.GE30316@wotan.suse.de>

On Tue, Oct 06 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:14:14PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06 2009, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Several people have been interested to test my vfs patches, so rather
> > > than resend patches I have uploaded a rollup against Linus's current
> > > head.
> > > 
> > > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/npiggin/patches/fs-scale/
> > > 
> > > I have used ext2,ext3,autofs4,nfs as well as in-memory filesystems
> > > OK (although this doesn't mean there are no bugs!). Otherwise, if your
> > > filesystem compiles, then there is a reasonable chance of it working,
> > > or ask me and I can try updating it for the new locking.
> > > 
> > > I would be interested in seeing any numbers people might come up with,
> > > including single-threaded performance.
> > 
> > I gave this a quick spin on the 64-thread nehalem. Just a simple dbench
> > with 64 clients on tmpfs. The results are below. While running perf top
> > -a in mainline, the top 5 entries are:
> > 
> >           2086691.00 - 96.6% : _spin_lock
> >             14866.00 -  0.7% : copy_user_generic_string
> >              5710.00 -  0.3% : mutex_spin_on_owner
> >              2837.00 -  0.1% : _atomic_dec_and_lock
> >              2274.00 -  0.1% : __d_lookup
> > 
> > Uhm auch... It doesn't look much prettier for the patch kernel, though:
> > 
> >           9396422.00 - 95.7% : _spin_lock
> >             66978.00 -  0.7% : copy_user_generic_string
> >             43775.00 -  0.4% : dput
> >             23946.00 -  0.2% : __link_path_walk
> >             17699.00 -  0.2% : path_init
> >             15046.00 -  0.2% : do_lookup
> 
> Yep, this is the problem of the common-path lookup. Every dentry
> element in the path has its d_lock taken for every path lookup,
> so cwd dentry lock bounces a lot for dbench.
> 
> I'm working on doing path traversal without any locks or stores
> to the dentries in the common cases, so that should basically
> be the last bit of the puzzle for vfs locking (although it can be
> considered a different type of problem than the global lock
> removal, but RCU-freed struct inode is important for the approach
> I'm taking, so I'm basing it on top of these patches).
>  
> It's a copout, but you could try running multiple dbenches under
> different working directories (or actually, IIRC dbench does root
> based path lookups so maybe that won't help you much).

Yeah, it's hitting dentry->d_lock pretty hard so basically
spin-serialized at that point.

> > Anyway, below are the results. Seem very stable.
> > 
> >                                 throughput
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > 2.6.32-rc3-git          |      561.218 MB/sec
> > 2.6.32-rc3-git+patch    |      627.022 MB/sec
> 
> Well it's good to see you got some improvement.

Yes, it's an improvement though the results are still pretty abysmal :-)

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2009-10-06 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 57+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-06  6:49 Nick Piggin
2009-10-06 10:14 ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-06 10:26   ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-06 11:10     ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-06 12:51       ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-06 12:26   ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-06 12:49     ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-10-07  8:58       ` [rfc][patch] store-free path walking Nick Piggin
2009-10-07  9:56         ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-07 10:10           ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-12  3:58           ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-12  5:59             ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-12  8:20               ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-12 11:00                 ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-13  1:26             ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-10-13  1:52               ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-07 14:56         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 16:27           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 16:46             ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-07 19:25               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 20:34                 ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-07 20:51                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 21:06                     ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-07 21:20                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 21:57                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-10-07 22:22                           ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-08  7:39                             ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09 17:53                               ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-08 13:12                           ` Denys Vlasenko
2009-10-09  7:47                             ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09 17:49                             ` Andi Kleen
2009-10-07 16:29           ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-08 12:36           ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-08 12:57             ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-08 13:22               ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-08 13:30                 ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-08 18:00                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-10-09  4:04                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09  8:54                 ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-09  9:51                   ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-09 10:02                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09 10:08                       ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-09 10:07                   ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09  3:50             ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09  6:15               ` David Miller
2009-10-09 10:40                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09 11:09                   ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-09 10:44                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-09 10:48                   ` Jens Axboe
2009-10-09 23:16         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-10-15 10:08 ` Latest vfs scalability patch Anton Blanchard
2009-10-15 10:39   ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-15 10:46     ` Anton Blanchard
2009-10-15 10:53   ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-15 11:23     ` Anton Blanchard
2009-10-15 11:41       ` Nick Piggin
2009-10-15 11:48         ` Nick Piggin

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=20091006124941.GS5216@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=kiran@scalex86.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    --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

Powered by JetHome