2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

[Nick Piggin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 839 bytes --]

Hi,

Just ran some tbench numbers (from dbench-3.04), on a 2 socket, 8
core x86 system, with 1 NUMA node per socket. With kernel 2.6.24-rc2,
comparing slab vs slub allocators.

I run from 1 to 16 client threads, 5 times each, and restarting
the tbench server between every run. I'm just taking the highest
of each of the 5 tests (because the scheduler placement can
sometimes be poor). It's not completely scientific, but from the
graph you can guess it is relatively stable and seems significant.

Summary: slub is consistently slower. When all CPUs are saturated,
it is around 20% slower. Attached is a graph (x is nrclients, y
is throughput MB/s)

If I can help with reproducing it or testing anything, let me know.
I'll be trying out a few other benchmarks too... anything you want
me to test specifically and I can try.

Thanks,
Nick

[-- Attachment #2: slab.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 4614 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> Just ran some tbench numbers (from dbench-3.04), on a 2 socket, 8
> core x86 system, with 1 NUMA node per socket. With kernel 2.6.24-rc2,
> comparing slab vs slub allocators.

You saw the discussion at 
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119354245426072&w=2
and the patches / configurations that were posted to address the issues?

Could you try these?

Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

[Christoph Lameter]

On an 8p 2.6.24-rc2 I see even a 50% regression on tbench SLAB vs. SLUB 
when specifying 8 threads. 

Interestingly nothing changes the performance numbers regardless of 
debugging on or off etc etc. Usually debugging should reduce performance 
but nada. May have something to do with the localhost interface? Something 
is effectively throttling SLUB here.

2.6.23 SLUB	           2159.62 MB/sec
2.6.24-rc2-slab head SLUB  1260.80 MB/sec

2.6.24 SLUB should be faster than 2.6.23 SLUB. Still trying to figure out 
what is going on....

2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Christoph Lameter]

commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0 seems to cause a drop
in SLUB tbench performance:

8p x86_64 system:

2.6.24-rc2:
	1260.80 MB/sec

After reverting the patch:
	2350.04 MB/sec

SLAB performance (which is at 2435.58 MB/sec, ~3% better than SLUB) is not 
affected by the patch.

Since this is an alignment change it seems that tbench performance is 
sensitive to the data layout? SLUB packs data more tightly than SLAB. So 
8 byte allocations could result in cacheline contention if adjacent 
objects are allocated from different cpus. SLABs minimum size is 32 
bytes so the cacheline contention is likely more limited.

Maybe we need to allocate a mininum of one cacheline to the skb head? Or 
padd it out to a full cacheline?




commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0
Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:   Sun Oct 21 16:27:46 2007 -0700

    [NET]: Fix SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD calculation

    The calculation in SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD is incorrect in that it can cause
    an overflow across a page boundary which is what it's meant to prevent.
    In particular, the header length (X) should not be lumped together with
    skb_shared_info.  The latter needs to be aligned properly while the header
    has no choice but to sit in front of wherever the payload is.

    Therefore the correct calculation is to take away the aligned size of
    skb_shared_info, and then subtract the header length.  The resulting
    quantity L satisfies the following inequality:

        SKB_DATA_ALIGN(L + X) + sizeof(struct skb_shared_info) <= PAGE_SIZE

    This is the quantity used by alloc_skb to do the actual allocation.

    Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
index f93f22b..369f60a 100644
--- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
+++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
@@ -41,8 +41,7 @@
 #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)      (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
                                 ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
 #define SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(X)   \
-       (((X) - sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) & \
-        ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
+       ((X) - SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))
 #define SKB_MAX_ORDER(X, ORDER) \
        SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD((PAGE_SIZE << (ORDER)) - (X))
 #define SKB_MAX_HEAD(X)                (SKB_MAX_ORDER((X), 0))

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

cc'ed linux-netdev

On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:46, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0 seems to cause a drop
> in SLUB tbench performance:
>
> 8p x86_64 system:
>
> 2.6.24-rc2:
> 	1260.80 MB/sec
>
> After reverting the patch:
> 	2350.04 MB/sec
>
> SLAB performance (which is at 2435.58 MB/sec, ~3% better than SLUB) is not
> affected by the patch.

Ah, I didn't realise this was a regression. Thanks for bisecting it.


> Since this is an alignment change it seems that tbench performance is
> sensitive to the data layout? SLUB packs data more tightly than SLAB. So
> 8 byte allocations could result in cacheline contention if adjacent
> objects are allocated from different cpus. SLABs minimum size is 32
> bytes so the cacheline contention is likely more limited.

> Maybe we need to allocate a mininum of one cacheline to the skb head? Or
> padd it out to a full cacheline?

The data should already be cacheline aligned. It is kmalloced, and
with a minimum size of somewhere around 200 bytes on a 64-bit machine.
So it will hit a cacheline aligned kmalloc slab AFAIKS  -- cacheline
interference is probably not the problem. (To verify, I built slub with
minimum kmalloc size set to 32 like slab and it's no real difference)

But I can't see why restricting the allocation to PAGE_SIZE would help
either. Maybe the macros are used in some other areas.

BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
same...


> commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0
> Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Date:   Sun Oct 21 16:27:46 2007 -0700
>
>     [NET]: Fix SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD calculation
>
>     The calculation in SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD is incorrect in that it can cause
>     an overflow across a page boundary which is what it's meant to prevent.
>     In particular, the header length (X) should not be lumped together with
>     skb_shared_info.  The latter needs to be aligned properly while the
> header has no choice but to sit in front of wherever the payload is.
>
>     Therefore the correct calculation is to take away the aligned size of
>     skb_shared_info, and then subtract the header length.  The resulting
>     quantity L satisfies the following inequality:
>
>         SKB_DATA_ALIGN(L + X) + sizeof(struct skb_shared_info) <= PAGE_SIZE
>
>     This is the quantity used by alloc_skb to do the actual allocation.
>     Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
>     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> index f93f22b..369f60a 100644
> --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> @@ -41,8 +41,7 @@
>  #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)      (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
>                                  ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
>  #define SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(X)   \
> -       (((X) - sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) & \
> -        ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
> +       ((X) - SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))
>  #define SKB_MAX_ORDER(X, ORDER) \
>         SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD((PAGE_SIZE << (ORDER)) - (X))
>  #define SKB_MAX_HEAD(X)                (SKB_MAX_ORDER((X), 0))

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Saturday 10 November 2007 12:29, Nick Piggin wrote:
> cc'ed linux-netdev

Err, make that 'netdev' :P

> On Saturday 10 November 2007 10:46, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0 seems to cause a drop
> > in SLUB tbench performance:
> >
> > 8p x86_64 system:
> >
> > 2.6.24-rc2:
> > 	1260.80 MB/sec
> >
> > After reverting the patch:
> > 	2350.04 MB/sec
> >
> > SLAB performance (which is at 2435.58 MB/sec, ~3% better than SLUB) is
> > not affected by the patch.
>
> Ah, I didn't realise this was a regression. Thanks for bisecting it.
>
> > Since this is an alignment change it seems that tbench performance is
> > sensitive to the data layout? SLUB packs data more tightly than SLAB. So
> > 8 byte allocations could result in cacheline contention if adjacent
> > objects are allocated from different cpus. SLABs minimum size is 32
> > bytes so the cacheline contention is likely more limited.
> >
> > Maybe we need to allocate a mininum of one cacheline to the skb head? Or
> > padd it out to a full cacheline?
>
> The data should already be cacheline aligned. It is kmalloced, and
> with a minimum size of somewhere around 200 bytes on a 64-bit machine.
> So it will hit a cacheline aligned kmalloc slab AFAIKS  -- cacheline
> interference is probably not the problem. (To verify, I built slub with
> minimum kmalloc size set to 32 like slab and it's no real difference)
>
> But I can't see why restricting the allocation to PAGE_SIZE would help
> either. Maybe the macros are used in some other areas.
>
> BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
> SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
> same...
>
> > commit deea84b0ae3d26b41502ae0a39fe7fe134e703d0
> > Author: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> > Date:   Sun Oct 21 16:27:46 2007 -0700
> >
> >     [NET]: Fix SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD calculation
> >
> >     The calculation in SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD is incorrect in that it can
> > cause an overflow across a page boundary which is what it's meant to
> > prevent. In particular, the header length (X) should not be lumped
> > together with skb_shared_info.  The latter needs to be aligned properly
> > while the header has no choice but to sit in front of wherever the
> > payload is.
> >
> >     Therefore the correct calculation is to take away the aligned size of
> >     skb_shared_info, and then subtract the header length.  The resulting
> >     quantity L satisfies the following inequality:
> >
> >         SKB_DATA_ALIGN(L + X) + sizeof(struct skb_shared_info) <=
> > PAGE_SIZE
> >
> >     This is the quantity used by alloc_skb to do the actual allocation.
> >     Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> >     Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/skbuff.h b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > index f93f22b..369f60a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/skbuff.h
> > @@ -41,8 +41,7 @@
> >  #define SKB_DATA_ALIGN(X)      (((X) + (SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1)) & \
> >                                  ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
> >  #define SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(X)   \
> > -       (((X) - sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) & \
> > -        ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
> > +       ((X) - SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)))
> >  #define SKB_MAX_ORDER(X, ORDER) \
> >         SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD((PAGE_SIZE << (ORDER)) - (X))
> >  #define SKB_MAX_HEAD(X)                (SKB_MAX_ORDER((X), 0))

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Christoph Lameter]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
> SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
> same...

You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with

slub_max_order=0

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> > wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
> > SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
> > same...
>
> You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with
>
> slub_max_order=0

Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:41:58 +1100

> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> > > wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
> > > SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
> > > same...
> >
> > You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with
> >
> > slub_max_order=0
> 
> Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
> more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.

Just a note that I'm not ignoring this issue, I just don't have time
to get to it yet.

I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for
TCP sends over loopback.  We're likely getting a much smaller
skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using
the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to
process.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:58, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:41:58 +1100
>
> > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > > BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> > > > wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations.
> > > > And SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB
> > > > did the same...
> > >
> > > You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with
> > >
> > > slub_max_order=0
> >
> > Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
> > more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.
>
> Just a note that I'm not ignoring this issue, I just don't have time
> to get to it yet.

No problem. I would like to have helped more, but it's slow going given
my lack of network stack knowledge. If I get any more interesting data,
I'll send it.


> I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for
> TCP sends over loopback.  We're likely getting a much smaller
> skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using
> the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to
> process.

It didn't seem to be noticeable at 1 client. Unless scatterlist
processing is going to cause cacheline bouncing, I don't see why this
hurts more as you add CPUs?

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:36:24 +1100

> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:58, David Miller wrote:
> > I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for
> > TCP sends over loopback.  We're likely getting a much smaller
> > skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using
> > the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to
> > process.
> 
> It didn't seem to be noticeable at 1 client. Unless scatterlist
> processing is going to cause cacheline bouncing, I don't see why this
> hurts more as you add CPUs?

Is your test system using HIGHMEM?

That's one thing the page vector in the sk_buff can do a lot,
kmaps.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 17:12, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 04:36:24 +1100
>
> > On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:58, David Miller wrote:
> > > I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for
> > > TCP sends over loopback.  We're likely getting a much smaller
> > > skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using
> > > the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to
> > > process.
> >
> > It didn't seem to be noticeable at 1 client. Unless scatterlist
> > processing is going to cause cacheline bouncing, I don't see why this
> > hurts more as you add CPUs?
>
> Is your test system using HIGHMEM?
>
> That's one thing the page vector in the sk_buff can do a lot,
> kmaps.

No, it's an x86-64, so no highmem.

What's also interesting is that SLAB apparently doesn't have this
condition. The first thing that sprung to mind is that SLAB caches
order > 0 allocations, while SLUB does not. However if anything,
that should actually favour the SLUB numbers if network is avoiding
order > 0 allocations.

I'm doing some oprofile runs now to see if I can get any more info.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:14:27 +1100

> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 17:12, David Miller wrote:
> > Is your test system using HIGHMEM?
> >
> > That's one thing the page vector in the sk_buff can do a lot,
> > kmaps.
> 
> No, it's an x86-64, so no highmem.

Ok.

> What's also interesting is that SLAB apparently doesn't have this
> condition. The first thing that sprung to mind is that SLAB caches
> order > 0 allocations, while SLUB does not. However if anything,
> that should actually favour the SLUB numbers if network is avoiding
> order > 0 allocations.
> 
> I'm doing some oprofile runs now to see if I can get any more info.

Here are some other things you can play around with:

1) Monitor the values of skb->len and skb->data_len for packets
   going over loopback.

2) Try removing NETIF_F_SG in drivers/net/loopback.c's dev->feastures
   setting.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4941 bytes --]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 17:37, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>

> > I'm doing some oprofile runs now to see if I can get any more info.

OK, in vanilla kernels, the page allocator definitely shows higher
in the results (than with Herbert's patch reverted).

27516     2.7217  get_page_from_freelist                                        
21677     2.1442  __rmqueue_smallest                                            
20513     2.0290  __free_pages_ok                                               
18725     1.8522  get_pageblock_flags_group             

Just these account for nearly 10% of cycles. __alloc_skb shows up
higher too. free_hot_cold_page() shows a lot lower though, which
might indicate that actually there is more higher order allocation
activity (I'll check that next).

****
SLUB, avg throughput 1548

CPU: AMD64 family10, speed 1900 MHz (estimated)
Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED events (Cycles outside of halt state) with a unit 
mask of 0x00 (No unit mask) count 100000
samples  %        symbol name
94636     9.3609  copy_user_generic_string
38932     3.8509  ipt_do_table
34746     3.4369  tcp_v4_rcv
29539     2.9218  skb_release_data
27516     2.7217  get_page_from_freelist
26046     2.5763  tcp_sendmsg
24482     2.4216  local_bh_enable
22910     2.2661  ip_queue_xmit
22113     2.1873  ktime_get
21677     2.1442  __rmqueue_smallest
20513     2.0290  __free_pages_ok
18725     1.8522  get_pageblock_flags_group
18580     1.8378  tcp_recvmsg
18108     1.7911  __napi_schedule
17593     1.7402  schedule
16998     1.6813  tcp_ack
16102     1.5927  dev_hard_start_xmit
15751     1.5580  system_call
15707     1.5536  net_rx_action
15150     1.4986  __switch_to
14988     1.4825  tcp_transmit_skb
13921     1.3770  kmem_cache_free
13398     1.3253  __mod_timer
13243     1.3099  tcp_rcv_established
13109     1.2967  __tcp_select_window
11022     1.0902  __tcp_push_pending_frames
10732     1.0615  set_normalized_timespec
10561     1.0446  netif_rx
8840      0.8744  netif_receive_skb
7816      0.7731  nf_iterate
7300      0.7221  __update_rq_clock
6683      0.6610  _read_lock_bh
6504      0.6433  sys_recvfrom
6283      0.6215  nf_hook_slow
6188      0.6121  release_sock
6172      0.6105  loopback_xmit
5927      0.5863  __alloc_skb
5707      0.5645  tcp_cleanup_rbuf
5538      0.5478  tcp_event_data_recv
5517      0.5457  tcp_v4_do_rcv
5516      0.5456  process_backlog
****
SLUB, net patch reverted. Avg throughput 1933MB/s
Counted CPU_CLK_UNHALTED , count 100000
samples  %        symbol name
95895     9.5094  copy_user_generic_string
50259     4.9839  ipt_do_table
39408     3.9079  skb_release_data
37296     3.6984  tcp_v4_rcv
31309     3.1047  ip_queue_xmit
31308     3.1046  local_bh_enable
24052     2.3851  net_rx_action
23786     2.3587  __napi_schedule
21426     2.1247  tcp_recvmsg
21075     2.0899  schedule
20938     2.0763  dev_hard_start_xmit
20222     2.0053  tcp_sendmsg
19775     1.9610  tcp_ack
19717     1.9552  system_call
19495     1.9332  set_normalized_timespec
18584     1.8429  __switch_to
17022     1.6880  tcp_rcv_established
14655     1.4533  tcp_transmit_skb
14466     1.4345  __mod_timer
13820     1.3705  loopback_xmit
13776     1.3661  get_page_from_freelist
13288     1.3177  netif_receive_skb
9718      0.9637  _read_lock_bh
9625      0.9545  nf_iterate
9440      0.9361  netif_rx
9148      0.9072  free_hot_cold_page
8633      0.8561  __update_rq_clock
7668      0.7604  sys_recvfrom
7578      0.7515  __tcp_push_pending_frames
7311      0.7250  find_pid_ns
7178      0.7118  nf_hook_slow
6655      0.6599  sysret_check
6313      0.6260  release_sock
6290      0.6237  tcp_cleanup_rbuf
6263      0.6211  __tcp_select_window
6235      0.6183  process_backlog
5920      0.5871  ip_local_deliver_finish
5651      0.5604  ip_rcv
5239      0.5195  ip_finish_output
5058      0.5016  kmem_cache_free
5016      0.4974  thread_return


> Here are some other things you can play around with:
>
> 1) Monitor the values of skb->len and skb->data_len for packets
>    going over loopback.

OK, I've taken a log2 histogram of ->len and ->data_len sizes.
I'll attach the plots (xaxis is byte value of most significant
bit set, y axis is number of occurances, logscale on X so 0 isn't
there :( ). If you want to see the patch or raw data, let me know.

len looks very similar for both kernels, although the reverted
kernel has significantly higher frequency at most points. tbench
unfortunately is only possible to do it time-based, so this is
rougly expected.

data_len has a spike that shifts up to 512-1023, from 256-511,
when reverting Herbert's patch. Again, I believe the magnitudes
of the spikes should actually be pretty close if we were doing
an equal amount of work.

I can't see that these numbers show much useful, unfortunately.


> 2) Try removing NETIF_F_SG in drivers/net/loopback.c's dev->feastures
>    setting.

Will try that now.

[-- Attachment #2: data.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 3622 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: len.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 4828 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 09:27, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > 2) Try removing NETIF_F_SG in drivers/net/loopback.c's dev->feastures
> >    setting.
>
> Will try that now.

Doesn't help (with vanilla kernel -- Herbert's patch applied).

data_len histogram drops to 0 and goes to len (I guess that's not
surprising).

Performance is pretty similar (ie. not good).

I'll look at allocator patterns next.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:27:39 +1100

> OK, in vanilla kernels, the page allocator definitely shows higher
> in the results (than with Herbert's patch reverted).
 ...
> I can't see that these numbers show much useful, unfortunately.

Thanks for all of this data Nick.

So the thing that's being effected here in TCP is
net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size(), specifically the else branch:

	int tmp = tp->mss_cache;
 ...
		else {
			int pgbreak = SKB_MAX_HEAD(MAX_TCP_HEADER);

			if (tmp >= pgbreak &&
			    tmp <= pgbreak + (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - 1) * PAGE_SIZE)
				tmp = pgbreak;
		}

This is deciding, in 'tmp', how much linear sk_buff space to
allocate.  'tmp' is initially set to the path MSS, which
for loopback is 16K - the space necessary for packet headers.

The SKB_MAX_HEAD() value has changed as a result of Herbert's
bug fix.   I suspect this 'if' test is passing both with and
without the patch.

But pgbreak is now smaller, and thus the skb->data linear
data area size we choose to use is smaller as well.

You can test if this is precisely what is causing the performance
regression by using the old calculation just here in select_size().

Add something like this local to net/ipv4/tcp.c:

#define OLD_SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(X)	\
	(((X) - sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) & \
	 ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
#define OLD_SKB_MAX_ORDER(X, ORDER) \
	OLD_SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD((PAGE_SIZE << (ORDER)) - (X))
#define OLD_SKB_MAX_HEAD(X)		(OLD_SKB_MAX_ORDER((X), 0))

And then use OLD_SKB_MAX_HEAD() in select_size().

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 22:10, David Miller wrote:
> From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:27:39 +1100
>
> > OK, in vanilla kernels, the page allocator definitely shows higher
> > in the results (than with Herbert's patch reverted).
>
>  ...
>
> > I can't see that these numbers show much useful, unfortunately.
>
> Thanks for all of this data Nick.
>
> So the thing that's being effected here in TCP is
> net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size(), specifically the else branch:
>
> 	int tmp = tp->mss_cache;
>  ...
> 		else {
> 			int pgbreak = SKB_MAX_HEAD(MAX_TCP_HEADER);
>
> 			if (tmp >= pgbreak &&
> 			    tmp <= pgbreak + (MAX_SKB_FRAGS - 1) * PAGE_SIZE)
> 				tmp = pgbreak;
> 		}
>
> This is deciding, in 'tmp', how much linear sk_buff space to
> allocate.  'tmp' is initially set to the path MSS, which
> for loopback is 16K - the space necessary for packet headers.
>
> The SKB_MAX_HEAD() value has changed as a result of Herbert's
> bug fix.   I suspect this 'if' test is passing both with and
> without the patch.
>
> But pgbreak is now smaller, and thus the skb->data linear
> data area size we choose to use is smaller as well.

OK, that makes sense. BTW, are you taking advantage of kmalloc's
"quantization" into slabs WRT the linear data area? I wonder if
it would be at all useful...


> You can test if this is precisely what is causing the performance
> regression by using the old calculation just here in select_size().
>
> Add something like this local to net/ipv4/tcp.c:
>
> #define OLD_SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD(X)	\
> 	(((X) - sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)) & \
> 	 ~(SMP_CACHE_BYTES - 1))
> #define OLD_SKB_MAX_ORDER(X, ORDER) \
> 	OLD_SKB_WITH_OVERHEAD((PAGE_SIZE << (ORDER)) - (X))
> #define OLD_SKB_MAX_HEAD(X)		(OLD_SKB_MAX_ORDER((X), 0))
>
> And then use OLD_SKB_MAX_HEAD() in select_size().

That brings performance back up!

I wonder why it isn't causing a problem for SLAB...

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Herbert Xu]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:10:22AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> 
> So the thing that's being effected here in TCP is
> net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size(), specifically the else branch:

Thanks for the pointer.  Indeed there is a bug in that area.
I'm not sure whether it's causing the problem at hand but it's
certainly suboptimal.

[TCP]: Fix size calculation in sk_stream_alloc_pskb

We round up the header size in sk_stream_alloc_pskb so that
TSO packets get zero tail room.  Unfortunately this rounding
up is not coordinated with the select_size() function used by
TCP to calculate the second parameter of sk_stream_alloc_pskb.

As a result, we may allocate more than a page of data in the
non-TSO case when exactly one page is desired.

In fact, rounding up the head room is detrimental in the non-TSO
case because it makes memory that would otherwise be available to
the payload head room.  TSO doesn't need this either, all it wants
is the guarantee that there is no tail room.

So this patch fixes this by adjusting the skb_reserve call so that
exactly the requested amount (which all callers have calculated in
a precise way) is made available as tail room.

Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h
index 5504fb9..567e468 100644
--- a/include/net/sock.h
+++ b/include/net/sock.h
@@ -1235,14 +1235,16 @@ static inline struct sk_buff *sk_stream_alloc_pskb(struct sock *sk,
 						   gfp_t gfp)
 {
 	struct sk_buff *skb;
-	int hdr_len;
 
-	hdr_len = SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sk->sk_prot->max_header);
-	skb = alloc_skb_fclone(size + hdr_len, gfp);
+	skb = alloc_skb_fclone(size + sk->sk_prot->max_header, gfp);
 	if (skb) {
 		skb->truesize += mem;
 		if (sk_stream_wmem_schedule(sk, skb->truesize)) {
-			skb_reserve(skb, hdr_len);
+			/*
+			 * Make sure that we have exactly size bytes
+			 * available to the caller, no more, no less.
+			 */
+			skb_reserve(skb, skb_tailroom(skb) - size);
 			return skb;
 		}
 		__kfree_skb(skb);

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Wednesday 14 November 2007 22:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:10:22AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > So the thing that's being effected here in TCP is
> > net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size(), specifically the else branch:
>
> Thanks for the pointer.  Indeed there is a bug in that area.
> I'm not sure whether it's causing the problem at hand but it's
> certainly suboptimal.
>
> [TCP]: Fix size calculation in sk_stream_alloc_pskb

This looks like it fixes the problem!

Still interested to know why SLAB didn't see the same thing...


> We round up the header size in sk_stream_alloc_pskb so that
> TSO packets get zero tail room.  Unfortunately this rounding
> up is not coordinated with the select_size() function used by
> TCP to calculate the second parameter of sk_stream_alloc_pskb.
>
> As a result, we may allocate more than a page of data in the
> non-TSO case when exactly one page is desired.
>
> In fact, rounding up the head room is detrimental in the non-TSO
> case because it makes memory that would otherwise be available to
> the payload head room.  TSO doesn't need this either, all it wants
> is the guarantee that there is no tail room.
>
> So this patch fixes this by adjusting the skb_reserve call so that
> exactly the requested amount (which all callers have calculated in
> a precise way) is made available as tail room.
>
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
>
> Cheers,

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:02:11 +1100

> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 22:48, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 03:10:22AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > So the thing that's being effected here in TCP is
> > > net/ipv4/tcp.c:select_size(), specifically the else branch:
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer.  Indeed there is a bug in that area.
> > I'm not sure whether it's causing the problem at hand but it's
> > certainly suboptimal.
> >
> > [TCP]: Fix size calculation in sk_stream_alloc_pskb
> 
> This looks like it fixes the problem!

Great, thanks for testing.  I'll apply Herbert's patch tomorrow
as I've already sent Linus a bug fix pull request tonight.

> Still interested to know why SLAB didn't see the same thing...

Yes, I wonder why too.  I bet objects just got packed differently.

There is this fugly "LOOPBACK_OVERHEAD" macro define in
drivers/net/loopback.c that is trying to figure out the
various overheads that we should subtract from the loopback
MTU we use by default.

It's almost guarenteed to be wrong for the way the allocators
work now.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:

> > Still interested to know why SLAB didn't see the same thing...
> 
> Yes, I wonder why too.  I bet objects just got packed differently.

The objects are packed tightly in SLUB and SLUB can allocate smaller 
objects (minimum is 8 SLAB mininum is 32).

On free a SLUB object goes directly back to the slab where it came from. 
We have no queues in SLUB so we use the first word of the object as a 
freepointer. In SLAB the objects first go onto queues and then are drained 
later into the slab. On free in SLAB there is usually no need to touch the 
object itself. The object pointer is simply moved onto the queue (works 
well in SMP, in NUMA we have overhead identifying the queue and 
overhead due to the number of queues needed).

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:48:44 +0800

> [TCP]: Fix size calculation in sk_stream_alloc_pskb
> 
> We round up the header size in sk_stream_alloc_pskb so that
> TSO packets get zero tail room.  Unfortunately this rounding
> up is not coordinated with the select_size() function used by
> TCP to calculate the second parameter of sk_stream_alloc_pskb.
> 
> As a result, we may allocate more than a page of data in the
> non-TSO case when exactly one page is desired.
> 
> In fact, rounding up the head room is detrimental in the non-TSO
> case because it makes memory that would otherwise be available to
> the payload head room.  TSO doesn't need this either, all it wants
> is the guarantee that there is no tail room.
> 
> So this patch fixes this by adjusting the skb_reserve call so that
> exactly the requested amount (which all callers have calculated in
> a precise way) is made available as tail room.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>

Applied and I'll queue it up for -stable too.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Thursday 15 November 2007 10:46, David Miller wrote:
> From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:48:44 +0800

> > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
>
> Applied and I'll queue it up for -stable too.

Good result. Thanks, everyone!

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[David Miller]

From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:21:36 +1100

> On Thursday 15 November 2007 10:46, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:48:44 +0800
> 
> > > Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
> >
> > Applied and I'll queue it up for -stable too.
> 
> Good result. Thanks, everyone!

This case is a good example to use the next time a stupid thread
starts up about bug reports not being looked into.  To me it's
seems clearly more a matter of the quality of the bug report.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Christoph Lameter]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:

> > As a result, we may allocate more than a page of data in the
> > non-TSO case when exactly one page is desired.

Well this is likely the result of the SLUB regression. If you allocate an 
order 1 page then the zone locks need to be taken. SLAB queues the a 
couple of higher order pages and can so serve a couple of requests without 
going into the page allocator whereas SLUB has to go directly to the page 
allocator for allocate and free. I guess that needs fixing in the page 
allocator. Or do I need to add a mechanism to buffer higher order page 
allcoations to SLUB?

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Herbert Xu]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:03:25PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 
> Well this is likely the result of the SLUB regression. If you allocate an 
> order 1 page then the zone locks need to be taken. SLAB queues the a 
> couple of higher order pages and can so serve a couple of requests without 
> going into the page allocator whereas SLUB has to go directly to the page 
> allocator for allocate and free. I guess that needs fixing in the page 
> allocator. Or do I need to add a mechanism to buffer higher order page 
> allcoations to SLUB?

Actually this serves to discourage people from using high-order
allocations which IMHO is a good thing :)

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt

Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

[Nick Piggin]

On Thursday 15 November 2007 12:11, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:03:25PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > Well this is likely the result of the SLUB regression. If you allocate an
> > order 1 page then the zone locks need to be taken. SLAB queues the a

Yeah, it appears this is what happened. The lockless page allocator
fastpath appears on the list and the slowpaths disappear after
Herbert's patches. SLAB is doing its own thing, so it avoids that
pitfall.


> > couple of higher order pages and can so serve a couple of requests
> > without going into the page allocator whereas SLUB has to go directly to
> > the page allocator for allocate and free. I guess that needs fixing in
> > the page allocator. Or do I need to add a mechanism to buffer higher
> > order page allcoations to SLUB?
>
> Actually this serves to discourage people from using high-order
> allocations which IMHO is a good thing :)

Yeah I completely agree. The right fix is in the caller...
The bug / suboptimal allocation would not have been found in tcp
if not for this ;)

Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

[Matt Mackall]

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:36:56PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just ran some tbench numbers (from dbench-3.04), on a 2 socket, 8
> core x86 system, with 1 NUMA node per socket. With kernel 2.6.24-rc2,
> comparing slab vs slub allocators.

Damn your misleading subject! I thought this was going to be about
something interesting.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers

[Nick Piggin]

On Tuesday 13 November 2007 07:13, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 11:36:56PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just ran some tbench numbers (from dbench-3.04), on a 2 socket, 8
> > core x86 system, with 1 NUMA node per socket. With kernel 2.6.24-rc2,
> > comparing slab vs slub allocators.
>
> Damn your misleading subject! I thought this was going to be about
> something interesting.

Actually I did test slob as well -- it's competitive with slab and
slub up to about 4 cores, which is nice.