You're right, PGLog::undirty() looks suspicious. I just pushed a branch wip-dumpling-pglog-undirty with a new config (osd_debug_pg_log_writeout) which if set to false will disable some strictly debugging checks which occur in PGLog::undirty(). We haven't actually seen these checks causing excessive cpu usage, so this may be a red herring. -Sam On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Oliver Daudey <oliver@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hey Mark, > > On za, 2013-08-17 at 08:16 -0500, Mark Nelson wrote: >> On 08/17/2013 06:13 AM, Oliver Daudey wrote: >> > Hey all, >> > >> > This is a copy of Bug #6040 (http://tracker.ceph.com/issues/6040) I >> > created in the tracker. Thought I would pass it through the list as >> > well, to get an idea if anyone else is running into it. It may only >> > show under higher loads. More info about my setup is in the bug-report >> > above. Here goes: >> > >> > >> > I'm running a Ceph-cluster with 3 nodes, each of which runs a mon, osd >> > and mds. I'm using RBD on this cluster as storage for KVM, CephFS is >> > unused at this time. While still on v0.61.7 Cuttlefish, I got 70-100 >> > +MB/sec on simple linear writes to a file with `dd' inside a VM on this >> > cluster under regular load and the osds usually averaged 20-100% >> > CPU-utilisation in `top'. After the upgrade to Dumpling, CPU-usage for >> > the osds shot up to 100% to 400% in `top' (multi-core system) and the >> > speed for my writes with `dd' inside a VM dropped to 20-40MB/sec. Users >> > complained that disk-access inside the VMs was significantly slower and >> > the backups of the RBD-store I was running, also got behind quickly. >> > >> > After downgrading only the osds to v0.61.7 Cuttlefish and leaving the >> > rest at 0.67 Dumpling, speed and load returned to normal. I have >> > repeated this performance-hit upon upgrade on a similar test-cluster >> > under no additional load at all. Although CPU-usage for the osds wasn't >> > as dramatic during these tests because there was no base-load from other >> > VMs, I/O-performance dropped significantly after upgrading during these >> > tests as well, and returned to normal after downgrading the osds. >> > >> > I'm not sure what to make of it. There are no visible errors in the logs >> > and everything runs and reports good health, it's just a lot slower, >> > with a lot more CPU-usage. >> >> Hi Oliver, >> >> If you have access to the perf command on this system, could you try >> running: >> >> "sudo perf top" >> >> And if that doesn't give you much, >> >> "sudo perf record -g" >> >> then: >> >> "sudo perf report | less" >> >> during the period of high CPU usage? This will give you a call graph. >> There may be symbols missing, but it might help track down what the OSDs >> are doing. > > Thanks for your help! I did a couple of runs on my test-cluster, > loading it with writes from 3 VMs concurrently and measuring the results > at the first node with all 0.67 Dumpling-components and with the osds > replaced by 0.61.7 Cuttlefish. I let `perf top' run and settle for a > while, then copied anything that showed in red and green into this post. > Here are the results (sorry for the word-wraps): > > First, with 0.61.7 osds: > > 19.91% [kernel] [k] intel_idle > 10.18% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 6.79% ceph-osd [.] ceph_crc32c_le > 4.93% [kernel] [k] > default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys > 2.71% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string > 1.42% libc-2.11.3.so [.] memcpy > 1.23% [kernel] [k] find_busiest_group > 1.13% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel > 1.11% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock > 0.99% kvm [.] 0x1931f8 > 0.92% [igb] [k] igb_poll > 0.87% [kernel] [k] native_write_cr0 > 0.80% [kernel] [k] csum_partial > 0.78% [kernel] [k] __do_softirq > 0.63% [kernel] [k] hpet_legacy_next_event > 0.53% [ip_tables] [k] ipt_do_table > 0.50% libc-2.11.3.so [.] 0x74433 > > Second test, with 0.67 osds: > > 18.32% [kernel] [k] intel_idle > 7.58% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave > 7.04% ceph-osd [.] PGLog::undirty() > 4.39% ceph-osd [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel > 3.92% [kernel] [k] > default_send_IPI_mask_sequence_phys > 2.25% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string > 1.76% libc-2.11.3.so [.] memcpy > 1.56% librados.so.2.0.0 [.] ceph_crc32c_le_intel > 1.40% libc-2.11.3.so [.] vfprintf > 1.12% libc-2.11.3.so [.] 0x7217b > 1.05% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_lock > 1.01% [kernel] [k] find_busiest_group > 0.83% kvm [.] 0x193ab8 > 0.80% [kernel] [k] native_write_cr0 > 0.76% [kernel] [k] __do_softirq > 0.73% libc-2.11.3.so [.] _IO_default_xsputn > 0.70% [kernel] [k] csum_partial > 0.68% [igb] [k] igb_poll > 0.58% [kernel] [k] hpet_legacy_next_event > 0.54% [kernel] [k] __schedule > > > What jumps right out, is the "PGLog::undirty()", which doesn't show up > with 0.61.7 at all, but is an extra drag right at top-usage in 0.67. > Note that I didn't manage to fully load the test-cluster CPU-wise, > because of network-constraints and I don't want to take any extra risks > on the production-cluster and test it there, but it seems we found a > possible culprit. > > Any ideas? Thanks again! > > > > Regards, > > Oliver > > _______________________________________________ > ceph-users mailing list > ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |