From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org>
To: Arun Sharma <asharma@fb.com>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@lge.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>,
Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf callchain: Use global caching provided by libunwind
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:24:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874mvxlprb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54217D09.40500@fb.com> (Arun Sharma's message of "Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:01:22 +0000")
Hi Arun,
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:01:22 +0000, Arun Sharma wrote:
> On 9/23/14, 12:00 PM, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
>> + unw_set_caching_policy(addr_space, UNW_CACHE_GLOBAL);
>
> The result is a bit surprising for me. In micro benchmarking (eg:
> Lperf-simple), the per-thread policy is generally faster because it
> doesn't involve locking.
>
> libunwind/tests/Lperf-simple
> unw_getcontext : cold avg= 109.673 nsec, warm avg= 28.610 nsec
> unw_init_local : cold avg= 259.876 nsec, warm avg= 9.537 nsec
> no cache : unw_step : 1st= 3258.387 min= 2922.331 avg= 3002.384 nsec
> global cache : unw_step : 1st= 1192.093 min= 960.486 avg= 982.208 nsec
> per-thread cache: unw_step : 1st= 429.153 min= 113.533 avg= 121.762 nsec
Yes, per-thread policy is faster than global caching policy. Below is my
test result. Note that I already run this several times before to
remove an effect that file contents loaded in page cache.
Performance counter stats for
'perf report -i /home/namhyung/tmp/perf-testing/perf.data.kbuild.dwarf --stdio' (3 runs):
UNW_CACHE_NONE UNW_CACHE_GLOBAL UNW_CACHE_PER_THREAD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
task-clock (msec) 14298.911947 7112.171928 6913.244797
context-switches 1,507 762 742
cpu-migrations 1 2 1
page-faults 2,924,889 1,101,380 1,101,380
cycles 53,895,784,665 26,798,627,423 26,070,728,349
stalled-cycles-frontend 24,472,506,687 12,577,760,746 12,435,320,081
stalled-cycles-backend 17,550,483,726 9,075,054,009 9,035,478,957
instructions 73,544,039,490 34,352,889,707 33,283,120,736
branches 14,969,890,371 7,139,469,848 6,926,994,151
branch-misses 193,852,116 100,455,431 99,757,213
time elapsed 14.905719730 7.455597356 7.242275972
>
> I can see how the global policy would involve less memory allocation
> because of shared data structures. Curious about the reason for the
> speedup (specifically if libunwind should change the defaults for the
> non-local unwinding case).
I don't see much difference between global and per-thread caching for
remote unwind (besides rs_cache->lock you mentioned). Also I'm curious
that how rs_new() is protected from concurrent accesses in per-thread
caching. That's why I chose the global caching - yeah, it probably
doesn't matter to a single thread, but... :)
Thanks
Namhyung
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-24 2:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-23 6:30 [PATCH 1/2] perf callchain: Create an address space per thread Namhyung Kim
2014-09-23 6:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] perf callchain: Use global caching provided by libunwind Namhyung Kim
2014-09-23 12:28 ` Jiri Olsa
2014-09-23 12:53 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-09-24 1:04 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-09-23 14:01 ` Arun Sharma
2014-09-24 2:24 ` Namhyung Kim [this message]
2014-09-24 13:45 ` Jean Pihet
2014-09-26 5:50 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-09-26 7:14 ` Jean Pihet
2014-09-29 2:35 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-09-23 12:24 ` [PATCH 1/2] perf callchain: Create an address space per thread Jiri Olsa
2014-09-23 12:49 ` Namhyung Kim
2014-09-26 15:35 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
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=874mvxlprb.fsf@sejong.aot.lge.com \
--to=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=asharma@fb.com \
--cc=jean.pihet@linaro.org \
--cc=jolsa@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=namhyung.kim@lge.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.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