* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
@ 2002-09-08 13:19 rwhron
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: rwhron @ 2002-09-08 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jmorris; +Cc: linux-kernel
> lmbench shows major changes in context switching latencies
> on a dual celeron system
Some lmbench tests vary a lot so I run it 25 times and
average the results. Some variations are only apparent on
particular cpus (cache size differences, smp, etc).
The lmbench averaging script I use is:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/lmbsum
lmbench on a quad xeon and a bit on how to use lmbsum:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html#lmbench
Recent uniprocessor results:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/latest.html#lmbench
--
Randy Hron
http://home.earthlink.net/~rwhron/kernel/bigbox.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-09-09 16:06 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2002-09-09 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I don't really see anythign very suspicious in the 31->32 changelogs.
> Somebody else already mentioned TLS etc, but that shouldn't really be
> noticeable...
I've now tracked the problem to the introduction of the new mtrr code, and
backing it out for 2.5.32 restores original performance. From what I can
tell, the new code is not handling a bios/hardware bug that the old code
was.
The old mtrr code says this during bootup:
mtrr: your CPUs had inconsistent fixed MTRR settings
mtrr: your CPUs had inconsistent variable MTRR settings
mtrr: probably your BIOS does not setup all CPUs
While the new code just says:
mtrr: SMP support incomplete for this vendor
The peformance hit is basically the same as when the old mtrr code is
disabled. I'll have a poke around and see if I can find out why the new
mtrr code isn't handling the problem.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 17:40 ` James Morris
@ 2002-09-08 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-09 16:06 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-09-08 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, James Morris wrote:
>
> I guess it could be an existing hardware problem which has been triggered
> by some innocuous change.
Does HZ make any difference to you? That's easily tested by just editing
include/asm-i386/param.h and changing HZ to 100 to get the old behaviour..
I think that change happened earlier than your performance problem, but
since lmbench variations can be noticeable and you only had one run per
kernel, it might be one of those "comes and goes" things..
Another thing that you might check out is to disable USB if you have it
on. The memory throughput issue makes me wonder whether there might be a
lot of DMA going on, and USB (by "design", and I use the term losely) has
this silly "DMA always" approach, even if nothing really is happening on
the bus.
I don't really see anythign very suspicious in the 31->32 changelogs.
Somebody else already mentioned TLS etc, but that shouldn't really be
noticeable...
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-09-08 17:40 ` James Morris
2002-09-08 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2002-09-08 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That "something else" may be some process that is constantly running one
> one CPU or something.
>
> Maybe something got confused by the kernel change, and is now getting
> stuck in the background?
Not as far as I can tell. The system is RH 7.3 with errata, and I've run
the tests again after shutting down everything except console login with
no change. No processes seem to be running abnormally.
I guess it could be an existing hardware problem which has been triggered
by some innocuous change.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 11:46 James Morris
2002-09-08 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2002-09-08 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-08 17:40 ` James Morris
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-09-08 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jmorris, linux-kernel
This looks ridiculous, a 1000 us latency is one millisecond, which would
seem to imply that something is getting synchronized with the timer
interrupt for some reason.
You also have a few other outliers (TCP latency and file delete), AND
your memory performance also went down a lot.
Quite frankly, the memory performance thing has nothing to do with the
OS, so there's something else going on on your machine. That "something
else" may be some process that is constantly running one one CPU or
something.
Maybe something got confused by the kernel change, and is now getting
stuck in the background?
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
@ 2002-09-08 12:55 ` James Morris
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2002-09-08 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On 8 Sep 2002, Andi Kleen wrote:
> 2.5.32 added the TLS changes, which do rewrite the GDT in context switch.
> Does it go away when you comment out the call to load_TLS in
> arch/i386/kernel/process.c:__switch_to() ?
Nope, the lmbench results look roughly the same.
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Performance issue in 2.5.32+
2002-09-08 11:46 James Morris
@ 2002-09-08 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-08 12:55 ` James Morris
2002-09-08 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andi Kleen @ 2002-09-08 11:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Morris; +Cc: linux-kernel
James Morris <jmorris@intercode.com.au> writes:
> I've noticed a significant performance hit on my system since 2.5.32.
> lmbench shows major changes in context switching latencies for 2.5.32 and
> 2.5.33 (see below, and profiling results for lat_ctx after that). This is
> on a dual celeron system with a Gigabyte GA6BXD motherboard. I can
> provide more hardware and configuration details if required.
2.5.32 added the TLS changes, which do rewrite the GDT in context switch.
Does it go away when you comment out the call to load_TLS in
arch/i386/kernel/process.c:__switch_to() ? (change should be harmless
unless you use a development glibc which uses TLS)
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Performance issue in 2.5.32+
@ 2002-09-08 11:46 James Morris
2002-09-08 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-08 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: James Morris @ 2002-09-08 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I've noticed a significant performance hit on my system since 2.5.32.
lmbench shows major changes in context switching latencies for 2.5.32 and
2.5.33 (see below, and profiling results for lat_ctx after that). This is
on a dual celeron system with a Gigabyte GA6BXD motherboard. I can
provide more hardware and configuration details if required.
L M B E N C H 2 . 0 S U M M A R Y
------------------------------------
Basic system parameters
----------------------------------------------------
Host OS Description Mhz
--------- ------------- ----------------------- ----
test1 Linux 2.4.19 i686-pc-linux-gnu 548
test1 Linux 2.5.31 i686-pc-linux-gnu 547
test1 Linux 2.5.32 i686-pc-linux-gnu 547
test1 Linux 2.5.33 i686-pc-linux-gnu 547
Processor, Processes - times in microseconds - smaller is better
----------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz null null open selct sig sig fork exec sh
call I/O stat clos TCP inst hndl proc proc proc
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
test1 Linux 2.4.19 548 0.64 1.09 6.04 8.10 49.9 1.52 4.81 498. 1399 6546
test1 Linux 2.5.31 547 0.61 1.15 6.77 9.91 44.2 1.48 5.12 576. 1698 7381
test1 Linux 2.5.32 547 0.64 1.18 6.24 9.64 1.52 5.08 703. 1884 8014
test1 Linux 2.5.33 547 0.64 1.15 6.29 8.18 1.52 5.08 733. 1884 7965
Context switching - times in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K 2p/16K 2p/64K 8p/16K 8p/64K 16p/16K 16p/64K
ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw ctxsw
--------- ------------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- -------
test1 Linux 2.4.19 2.890 10.7 94.5 34.1 130.8 35.9 135.0
test1 Linux 2.5.31 7.160 12.8 64.4 21.8 131.7 38.4 133.6
test1 Linux 2.5.32 1.460 1085.4 95.1 333.1 1078.8 200.6 634.3
test1 Linux 2.5.33 2.080 9.4200 93.8 37.4 1096.0 212.3 1079.8
*Local* Communication latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 2p/0K Pipe AF UDP RPC/ TCP RPC/ TCP
ctxsw UNIX UDP TCP conn
--------- ------------- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----
test1 Linux 2.4.19 2.890 13.0 39.2 60.7 120.
test1 Linux 2.5.31 7.160 9.213 17.5 62.0 121.
test1 Linux 2.5.32 1.460 10.5 18.8 48.7 249.
test1 Linux 2.5.33 2.080 10.5 17.9 8018. 192.
File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
--------------------------------------------------------------
Host OS 0K File 10K File Mmap Prot Page
Create Delete Create Delete Latency Fault Fault
--------- ------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------- ----- -----
test1 Linux 2.4.19 117.2 36.4 316.4 73.6 1811.0 1.234 4.00000
test1 Linux 2.5.31 123.6 40.5 341.5 83.5 3120.0 1.316 5.00000
test1 Linux 2.5.32 125.4 41.4 25.6K 5988.0 3224.0 1.223 5.00000
test1 Linux 2.5.33 121.5 38.8 198.5 81.8 3078.0 1.327 5.00000
*Local* Communication bandwidths in MB/s - bigger is better
-----------------------------------------------------------
Host OS Pipe AF TCP File Mmap Bcopy Bcopy Mem Mem
UNIX reread reread (libc) (hand) read write
--------- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---- -----
test1 Linux 2.4.19 164. 145. 78.8 216.1 443.3 155.3 154.5 443. 185.3
test1 Linux 2.5.31 215. 123. 84.9 235.9 440.5 158.8 157.9 440. 199.5
test1 Linux 2.5.32 203. 103. 6.75 199.5 388.8 143.7 142.0 387. 182.2
test1 Linux 2.5.33 130. 2.42 9.07 162.7 388.7 144.8 143.1 389. 182.8
Memory latencies in nanoseconds - smaller is better
(WARNING - may not be correct, check graphs)
---------------------------------------------------
Host OS Mhz L1 $ L2 $ Main mem Guesses
--------- ------------- ---- ----- ------ -------- -------
test1 Linux 2.4.19 548 5.470 100.8 133.1
test1 Linux 2.5.31 547 5.478 87.0 133.5
test1 Linux 2.5.32 547 5.483 102.8 146.8
test1 Linux 2.5.33 547 5.483 110.8 146.5
* lat_ctx profiling data for 2.5.31:
"size=64k ovr=33.90
16 137.67
868 default_idle 13.5625
24 system_call 0.5455
14 __wake_up 0.2917
17 do_gettimeofday 0.1181
4 sys_gettimeofday 0.0250
1 pgd_alloc 0.0156
2 pte_alloc_one 0.0139
938 total 0.0077
6 schedule 0.0067
1 do_page_fault 0.0009
1 copy_process 0.0005
* lat_ctx profiling data for 2.5.32:
"size=64k ovr=33.85
16 629.19
1329 default_idle 20.7656
22 system_call 0.5000
23 __wake_up 0.4792
3 syscall_call 0.2727
1 syscall_exit 0.0909
13 do_gettimeofday 0.0903
8 sys_gettimeofday 0.0500
1 ret_from_intr 0.0417
33 schedule 0.0368
2 remove_wait_queue 0.0312
1 schedule_tail 0.0208
2 pte_alloc_one 0.0139
1445 total 0.0117
1 cpu_idle 0.0089
1 session_of_pgrp 0.0078
1 do_softirq 0.0052
1 sys_rt_sigaction 0.0042
1 do_sigaction 0.0028
1 copy_files 0.0014
1 do_exit 0.0014
- James
--
James Morris
<jmorris@intercode.com.au>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-09 16:01 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-08 13:19 Performance issue in 2.5.32+ rwhron
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-08 11:46 James Morris
2002-09-08 11:57 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-08 12:55 ` James Morris
2002-09-08 15:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-08 17:40 ` James Morris
2002-09-08 18:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-09-09 16:06 ` James Morris
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).