On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 08:06:14 +0000 Atsushi Kumagai <ats-kumagai at wm.jp.nec.com> wrote: > >On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 05:14:25 +0000 > >Atsushi Kumagai <ats-kumagai at wm.jp.nec.com> wrote: > > > >> >On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 04:10:22 +0000 > >> >Atsushi Kumagai <ats-kumagai at wm.jp.nec.com> wrote: > >>[...] > >> >> I'm going to release v1.5.8 soon, so I'll adopt v2 patch if > >> >> you don't think updating it. > >> > > >> >Since v2 already brings some performance gain, I appreciate it if you > >> >can adopt it for v1.5.8. > >> > >> Ok, but unfortunately I got some error log during my test like below: > >> > >> $ ./makedumpfile -d31 /tmp/vmcore ./dumpfile.d31 > >> Excluding free pages : [ 0.0 %] / > >> reset_bitmap_of_free_pages: The free list is broken. > >> reset_bitmap_of_free_pages: The free list is broken. > >> > >> makedumpfile Failed. > >> $ > >> > >> All of errors are the same as the above at least in my test. > >> I clarified that [PATCH v2 7/8] causes this by git bisect, > >> but the root cause is under investigation. > > > >The only change I can think of is the removal of page_is_fractional. > >Originally, LOADs that do not start on a page boundary were never > >mmapped. With this patch, this check is removed. > > > >Can you try adding the following check to mappage_elf (and dropping > >patch 8/8)? > > > > if (page_is_fractional(offset)) > > return NULL; > > It worked, thanks! > > Additionally, I've remembered that we should keep page_is_fractional() > for old kernels. Well, if a LOAD segment is not page-aligned, the previous code would have mapped only the page-aligned portion, and never beyond its boundaries. I'm unsure what causes the bug, but I don't have time to find the real root cause, so let's leave the fractional check in place for now. I'll be sending v3 of the patch set shortly. Thank you for testing! Petr T > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/13/439 > > > Thanks > Atsushi Kumagai > > >Petr T > > > >P.S. This reminds me I should try to get some kernel dumps with > >fractional pages for regression testing... > > > >> >Thank you very much, > >> >Petr Tesarik > >> > > >> >> Thanks > >> >> Atsushi Kumagai > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Here the actual results I got with "perf record": > >> >> >> > >> >> >> $ time ./makedumpfile -d 31 /proc/vmcore /dev/null -f > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Output of "perf report" for mmap case: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /* Most time spent for unmap in kernel */ > >> >> >> 29.75% makedumpfile [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >> >> >> unmap_single_vma 9.84% makedumpfile [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >> >> >> remap_pfn_range 8.49% makedumpfile [kernel.kallsyms] [k] > >> >> >> vm_normal_page > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /* Still some mmap overhead in makedumpfile readmem() */ > >> >> >> 21.56% makedumpfile makedumpfile [.] readmem > >> >> > > >> >> >This number is interesting. Did you compile makedumpfile with > >> >> >optimizations? If yes, then this number probably includes some > >> >> >functions which were inlined. > >> >> > > >> >> >> 8.49% makedumpfile makedumpfile [.] > >> >> >> write_kdump_pages_cyclic > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Output of "perf report" for non-mmap case: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /* Time spent for sys_read (that needs also two copy > >> >> >> operations on s390 :() */ 25.32% makedumpfile > >> >> >> [kernel.kallsyms] [k] memcpy_real 22.74% makedumpfile > >> >> >> [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __copy_to_user > >> >> >> > >> >> >> /* readmem() for read path is cheaper ? */ > >> >> >> 13.49% makedumpfile makedumpfile [.] > >> >> >> write_kdump_pages_cyclic 4.53% makedumpfile makedumpfile > >> >> >> [.] readmem > >> >> > > >> >> >Yes, much lower overhead of readmem is strange. For a moment I > >> >> >suspected wrong accounting of the page fault handler, but then > >> >> >I realized that for /proc/vmcore, all page table entries are > >> >> >created with the present bit set already, so there are no page > >> >> >faults... > >> >> > > >> >> >I haven't had time yet to set up a system for reproduction, but > >> >> >I'll try to identify what's eating up the CPU time in > >> >> >readmem(). > >> >> > > >> >> >>[...] > >> >> >> I hope this analysis helps more than it confuses :-) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As a conclusion, we could think of mapping larger chunks > >> >> >> also for the fragmented case of -d 31 to reduce the amount > >> >> >> of mmap/munmap calls. > >> >> > > >> >> >I agree in general. Memory mapped through /proc/vmcore does not > >> >> >increase run-time memory requirements, because it only adds a > >> >> >mapping to the old kernel's memory. The only limiting factor is > >> >> >the virtual address space. On many architectures, this is no > >> >> >issue at all, and we could simply map the whole file at > >> >> >beginning. On some architectures, the virtual address space is > >> >> >smaller than possible physical RAM, so this approach would not > >> >> >work for them. > >> >> > > >> >> >> Another open question was why the mmap case consumes more CPU > >> >> >> time in readmem() than the read case. Our theory is that the > >> >> >> first memory access is slower because it is not in the HW > >> >> >> cache. For the mmap case userspace issues the first access > >> >> >> (copy to makdumpfile cache) and for the read case the kernel > >> >> >> issues the first access (memcpy_real/copy_to_user). > >> >> >> Therefore the cache miss is accounted to userspace for mmap > >> >> >> and to kernel for read. > >> >> > > >> >> >I have no idea how to measure this on s390. On x86_64 I would > >> >> >add some asm code to read TSC before and after the memory > >> >> >access instruction. I guess there is a similar counter on s390. > >> >> >Suggestions? > >> >> > > >> >> >> And last but not least, perhaps on s390 we could replace > >> >> >> the bounce buffer used for memcpy_real()/copy_to_user() by > >> >> >> some more inteligent solution. > >> >> > > >> >> >Which would then improve the non-mmap times even more, right? > >> >> > > >> >> >Petr T > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> kexec mailing list > >> kexec at lists.infradead.org > >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec >
