From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751198AbcGMUSs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:18:48 -0400
Received: from mail-yw0-f176.google.com ([209.85.161.176]:34813 "EHLO
	mail-yw0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750829AbcGMUSj (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:18:39 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 16:18:23 -0400
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
Message-ID: <20160713201823.GB29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
References: <CALAqxLV2H06M2AxP2kK7pGHjLgQAaGdHB9HJEGZjH_Rouy4WhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713182102.GJ4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713183347.GK4065@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <CALAqxLU76kVm8b5GNnSk25-Xk6D1efiWtwNJbY1th_pcN9Ks=g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLU76kVm8b5GNnSk25-Xk6D1efiWtwNJbY1th_pcN9Ks=g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hello, John.

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 01:13:11PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:21:02PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> >> One interesting thing to try would be replacing it with a regular
> >> non-percpu rwsem and see how it behaves.  That should easily tell us
> >> whether this is from actual contention or artifacts from percpu_rwsem
> >> implementation.
> >
> > So, something like the following.  Can you please see whether this
> > makes any difference?
> 
> Yea. So this brings it down for me closer to what we're seeing with
> the Dmitry's patch reverting the two problematic commits, usually
> 10-50us with one early spike at 18ms.

So, it's a percpu rwsem issue then.  I haven't really followed the
perpcpu rwsem changes closely.  Oleg, are multi-milisec delay expected
on down write expected with the current implementation of
percpu_rwsem?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun