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 S1752735AbcGMIVd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:21:33 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:45032 "EHLO
	bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751342AbcGMIVV (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 13 Jul 2016 04:21:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 10:21:12 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        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 McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
Message-ID: <20160713082112.GR30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <CALAqxLV2H06M2AxP2kK7pGHjLgQAaGdHB9HJEGZjH_Rouy4WhQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLV2H06M2AxP2kK7pGHjLgQAaGdHB9HJEGZjH_Rouy4WhQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23.1 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 05:00:04PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Hey Tejun,
> 
>   So Dmitry Shmidt recently noticed that with 4.4 based systems we're
> seeing quite a bit of performance overhead from
> __cgroup_procs_write().
> 
> With 4.4 tree as it stands, we're seeing __cgroup_procs_write() quite
> often take 10s of miliseconds to execute (with max times up in the
> 80ms range).
> 
> While with 4.1 it was quite often in the single usec range, and max
> time values still in in sub-milisecond range.
> 
> The majority of these performance regressions seem to come from the
> locking changes in:
> 
> 3014dde762f6 ("cgroup: simplify threadgroup locking")
> and
> 1ed1328792ff  ("sched, cgroup: replace signal_struct->group_rwsem with
> a global percpu_rwsem")
> 
> Dmitry has found that by reverting these two changes (which don't
> revert easiliy), we can get back down to tens 10-100 usec range for
> most calls, with max values occasionally spiking to ~18ms.
> 
> Those two commits do talk about performance regressions, that were
> supposedly alleviated by percpu_rwsem changes, but I'm not sure we are
> seeing this.

Do you have 'funny' RCU options that quickly force a grace period when
you go idle or something?

But yes, it does not surprise me to find this commit is causing
problems.