Hello HATAYAMA-san,
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:04:36 +0900
Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 12:19:57 +0900 (JST)
> HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama at jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> > > + */
> > > +#define BUFSIZE_CYCLIC (8192)
> > > +#define PFN_CYCLIC (BUFSIZE_CYCLIC * BITPERBYTE)
> > > +
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > * Minimam vmcore has 2 ProgramHeaderTables(PT_NOTE and PT_LOAD).
> >
> > How did you choose this buffer size? Best performance? I think the
> > performacne varies according to this buffer size, and to evaluate it,
> > it's useful to be able to specify the size through command-line.
>
> Honestly, the buffer size has no means, I defined it without a specific reason
> at first.
>
> However, it's understandable that the size is important key for performance and
> I agree with your opinion that enabling to specify the size is useful.
>
> But, I noticed just now, prototype with increased buffer size isn't work correctly.
>
> - BUFSIZE_CYCLIC = 8192:
>
> $ makedumpfile -Kcd31 vmcore testdump.Kcd31
> ...
> The dumpfile is saved to testdump.Kcd31.
>
> makedumpfile Completed.
> $ ls -l testdump.*
> -rw------- 1 kumagai kumagai 21167309 6? 7 13:55 testdump.Kcd31
> -rw------- 1 kumagai kumagai 21167309 6? 7 13:28 testdump.cd31
> $
>
> - BUFSIZE_CYCLIC = 16384:
>
> $ makedumpfile -Kcd31 vmcore testdump.Kcd31
> ...
> The dumpfile is saved to testdump.Kcd31.
>
> makedumpfile Completed.
> $ ls -l testdump.*
> -rw------- 1 kumagai kumagai 18836948 6? 7 13:59 testdump.Kcd31
> -rw------- 1 kumagai kumagai 21167309 6? 7 13:28 testdump.cd31
> $
>
>
> I must review my code quickly.
I found my mistake in the process of incraesing target region and
show the modification at the end of this email.
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 16:54:49 +0900
Atsushi Kumagai <kumagai-atsushi at mxc.nes.nec.co.jp> wrote:
[...]
> After received your mail, I measured executing time with the patch below.
> The result below was measured in 5GB memory machine.
>
> Result:
> a. makedumpfile -Kcd31
> excluding time: 6.55 [sec]
> writing time: 5.89 [sec]
I measured executing time with BUFSIZE=8192 on 4 June as above.
Additionally, I measured executing time with BUFSIZE=16384, 24576 and 32768
in the same environment.
Result:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
buffer size [byte] excluding time [sec] writing time [sec]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8192 6.55 5.89
16384 3.49 5.91
24576 2.39 5.96
32768 1.83 5.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the buffer size is really effective in performance.
Even if we choose the way without tracing free_list, the overhead of cyclic processing
will be reduced, so I expect some speedup.
If enabling to specify the buffer size, I think the information for decision of
buffer size is needed. How do you decide the buffer size ?
Thanks
Atsushi Kumagai
diff --git a/makedumpfile.c b/makedumpfile.c
index 919e266..adc0415 100644
--- a/makedumpfile.c
+++ b/makedumpfile.c
@@ -2797,7 +2797,7 @@ set_bitmap_cyclic(char *bitmap, unsigned long long pfn, int val)
{
int byte, bit;
- if (pfn < info->cyclic_start_pfn || info->cyclic_end_pfn < pfn)
+ if (pfn < info->cyclic_start_pfn || info->cyclic_end_pfn <= pfn)
return FALSE;
/*
@@ -3871,7 +3871,7 @@ exclude_unnecessary_pages_cyclic(void)
if (mmd->mem_map == NOT_MEMMAP_ADDR)
continue;
- if (mmd->pfn_end >= info->cyclic_start_pfn || mmd->pfn_start <= info->cyclic_end_pfn) {
+ if (!(mmd->pfn_end - 1 < info->cyclic_start_pfn && mmd->pfn_start >= info->cyclic_end_pfn)) {
if (!__exclude_unnecessary_pages(mmd->mem_map,
mmd->pfn_start, mmd->pfn_end))
return FALSE;
@@ -5470,23 +5470,25 @@ int
write_kdump_bitmap_cyclic(void)
{
off_t offset;
-
+ int increment;
int ret = FALSE;
+ increment = divideup(info->cyclic_end_pfn - info->cyclic_start_pfn, BITPERBYTE);
+
if (info->flag_elf_dumpfile)
return FALSE;
offset = info->offset_bitmap1;
if (!write_buffer(info->fd_dumpfile, offset,
- info->partial_bitmap1, BUFSIZE_CYCLIC, info->name_dumpfile))
+ info->partial_bitmap1, increment, info->name_dumpfile))
goto out;
offset += info->len_bitmap / 2;
if (!write_buffer(info->fd_dumpfile, offset,
- info->partial_bitmap2, BUFSIZE_CYCLIC, info->name_dumpfile))
+ info->partial_bitmap2, increment, info->name_dumpfile))
goto out;
- info->offset_bitmap1 += BUFSIZE_CYCLIC;
+ info->offset_bitmap1 += increment;
ret = TRUE;
out:
@@ -5508,9 +5510,12 @@ write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, struct cache_d
*/
d_exclude_start = getdtime();
for (info->cyclic_start_pfn = 0, info->cyclic_end_pfn = PFN_CYCLIC;
- info->cyclic_end_pfn <= info->max_mapnr;
+ info->cyclic_start_pfn < info->max_mapnr;
info->cyclic_start_pfn += PFN_CYCLIC, info->cyclic_end_pfn += PFN_CYCLIC) {
+ if (info->cyclic_end_pfn > info->max_mapnr)
+ info->cyclic_end_pfn = info->max_mapnr;
+
info->num_dumpable += get_num_dumpable_cyclic();
}
d_exclude_end = getdtime();
@@ -5546,9 +5551,12 @@ write_kdump_pages_and_bitmap_cyclic(struct cache_data *cd_header, struct cache_d
* Write pages and bitmap cyclically.
*/
for (info->cyclic_start_pfn = 0, info->cyclic_end_pfn = PFN_CYCLIC;
- info->cyclic_end_pfn <= info->max_mapnr;
+ info->cyclic_start_pfn < info->max_mapnr;
info->cyclic_start_pfn += PFN_CYCLIC, info->cyclic_end_pfn += PFN_CYCLIC) {
+ if (info->cyclic_end_pfn > info->max_mapnr)
+ info->cyclic_end_pfn = info->max_mapnr;
+
d_exclude_start = getdtime();
if (!create_1st_bitmap_cyclic())
return FALSE;
diff --git a/makedumpfile.h b/makedumpfile.h
index d0f6032..be4d8e0 100644
--- a/makedumpfile.h
+++ b/makedumpfile.h
@@ -1416,7 +1414,7 @@ is_dumpable(struct dump_bitmap *bitmap, unsigned long long pfn)
static inline int
is_dumpable_cyclic(char *bitmap, unsigned long long pfn)
{
- if (pfn < info->cyclic_start_pfn || info->cyclic_end_pfn < pfn)
+ if (pfn < info->cyclic_start_pfn || info->cyclic_end_pfn <= pfn)
return FALSE;
else
return is_on(bitmap, pfn - info->cyclic_start_pfn);
