On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 02/09/2011 09:02 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> I have a new module that uses the async_tx.h lib.
>>
>> On an exact same module code based on 3.6.37 I see the:
>> xor: measuring software checksum speed
>> 8regs : 11312.000 MB/sec
>> 8regs_prefetch: 9792.800 MB/sec
>> 32regs : 11220.400 MB/sec
>> 32regs_prefetch: 9750.800 MB/sec
>> xor: using function: 8regs (11312.000 MB/sec)
>>
>> And all is well. But on code based on 2.6.38-rc4 I get hard stuck
>> right after:
>> xor: measuring software checksum speed
>>
>
> OK this is not dependent on Kernel version it is the same for both
> .38-rc4 and .37. I was just lucky with .37 more.
>
> And the same things happen with raid456 module. I do
> []$ modprobe raid456; modprobe --remove raid456
> A few times it loads, printing the above checks, Then At one
> time it freezes. Sometimes at first attempt sometimes at 4-7
> attempts. I never went 10 times strait.
>
> When it freezes (hard) I can see in my host that the UML is
> at 100% CPU.
>
> BTW: when I manage to pass the tests I get the above numbers
> But when I load directly on the host I get:
>
> xor: automatically using best checksumming function: generic_sse
> generic_sse: 7596.000 MB/sec
> xor: using function: generic_sse (7596.000 MB/sec)
> raid6: int64x1 1660 MB/s
> raid6: int64x2 1832 MB/s
> raid6: int64x4 1566 MB/s
> raid6: int64x8 1175 MB/s
> raid6: sse2x1 3699 MB/s
> raid6: sse2x2 4398 MB/s
> raid6: sse2x4 5863 MB/s
> raid6: using algorithm sse2x4 (5863 MB/s)
>
> and on the UML:
>
> raid6: int64x1 2019 MB/s
> raid6: int64x2 2208 MB/s
> raid6: int64x4 1892 MB/s
> raid6: int64x8 1528 MB/s
> raid6: using algorithm int64x2 (2208 MB/s)
> xor: measuring software checksum speed
> 8regs : 11308.000 MB/sec
> 8regs_prefetch: 9795.600 MB/sec
> 32regs : 11236.000 MB/sec
> 32regs_prefetch: 9752.400 MB/sec
> xor: using function: 8regs (11308.000 MB/sec)
>
> So the raid6 sse is better, but comparing it64xX the UML is faster than host
> But raid5? that's 33% better results. Does that say that UML's clock has
> a bug?
>
> Any way I'm trying to debug that xor.ko loading problem see what
> comes up. Any help is welcome
Hmmm, can you bisect it?
Can you post you config then I can also try my best...
> Thanks
> Boaz
>
>> the UML is completely frozen. When I kill the uml from the host
>> I can sometimes get this trace.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>> 750c7498: [<6005f936>] bad_page+0xd8/0xf3
>> 750c74c8: [<60060c93>] get_page_from_freelist+0x333/0x47b
>> 750c7508: [<60131243>] put_dec+0x20/0x3c
>> 750c75a0: [<6001a0ac>] change_pre_exec+0x0/0x24
>> 750c75b8: [<60060ef1>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x116/0x65b
>> 750c7668: [<60132e25>] sprintf+0xa1/0xa3
>> 750c76a0: [<6001a0ac>] change_pre_exec+0x0/0x24
>> 750c76b8: [<60061446>] __get_free_pages+0x10/0x43
>> 750c76c8: [<60012875>] alloc_stack+0x1b/0x1d
>> 750c76d8: [<6001fe27>] run_helper+0x26/0x1b5
>> 750c76e8: [<60021553>] set_signals+0x1c/0x2e
>> 750c7708: [<6007efac>] __kmalloc+0x9e/0xc4
>> 750c7748: [<6001a544>] change+0x124/0x189
>> 750c77e8: [<601b77db>] _raw_spin_unlock+0x9/0xb
>> 750c7818: [<6001a5a9>] close_addr+0x0/0x1c
>> 750c7828: [<6001a5c3>] close_addr+0x1a/0x1c
>> 750c7838: [<6001926a>] iter_addresses+0x5f/0x76
>> 750c7858: [<6007e8e8>] kfree+0x92/0x9b
>> 750c7898: [<60022d01>] tuntap_close+0x24/0x38
>> 750c78b8: [<600194e4>] close_devices+0x4a/0x7f
>> 750c78d8: [<600121bf>] do_uml_exitcalls+0x12/0x23
>> 750c78f8: [<60012cd2>] uml_cleanup+0x1a/0x87
>> 750c7928: [<6002039b>] last_ditch_exit+0x9/0x16
>> 750c79e8: [<78817031>] xor_8regs_2+0x31/0x58 [xor]
>> 750c7a18: [<7881b000>] calibrate_xor_blocks+0x0/0xdf [xor]
>> 750c7aa8: [<601b77ce>] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x18/0x1c
>> 750c7ac8: [<60029d8d>] try_to_wake_up+0x86/0x98
>> 750c7d78: [<601b548d>] printk+0xa0/0xa3
>> 750c7e08: [<78817633>] do_xor_speed+0x54/0xaf [xor]
>> 750c7e20: [<7881b000>] calibrate_xor_blocks+0x0/0xdf [xor]
>> 750c7e58: [<7881b057>] calibrate_xor_blocks+0x57/0xdf [xor]
>> 750c7e68: [<7881b000>] calibrate_xor_blocks+0x0/0xdf [xor]
>> 750c7e78: [<6001105a>] do_one_initcall+0x76/0x121
>> 750c7eb8: [<600563fd>] sys_init_module+0x78/0x1a6
>> 750c7ee8: [<60014d60>] handle_syscall+0x58/0x70
>> 750c7f08: [<60024163>] userspace+0x2dd/0x38a
>> 750c7fc8: [<600126af>] fork_handler+0x62/0x69
>>
>> (gdb) list *(xor_8regs_2+0x31)
>> 0x55 is in xor_8regs_2 (/usr0/export/dev/bharrosh/git/pub/scsi-misc/include/asm-generic/xor.h:29).
>> 24 p1[0] ^= p2[0];
>> 25 p1[1] ^= p2[1];
>> 26 p1[2] ^= p2[2];
>> 27 p1[3] ^= p2[3];
>> 28 p1[4] ^= p2[4];
>> 29 p1[5] ^= p2[5];
>> 30 p1[6] ^= p2[6];
>> 31 p1[7] ^= p2[7];
>> 32 p1 += 8;
>> 33 p2 += 8;
>> (gdb) list *(calibrate_xor_blocks+0x0)
>> 0xd52 is in calibrate_xor_blocks (/usr0/export/dev/bharrosh/git/pub/scsi-misc/crypto/xor.c:101).
>> 96 speed / 1000, speed % 1000);
>> 97 }
>> 98
>> 99 static int __init
>> 100 calibrate_xor_blocks(void)
>> 101 {
>> 102 void *b1, *b2;
>> 103 struct xor_block_template *f, *fastest;
>> 104
>> 105 /*
>> (gdb) list *(do_xor_speed+0x54)
>> 0x657 is in do_xor_speed (/usr0/export/dev/bharrosh/git/pub/scsi-misc/crypto/xor.c:84).
>> 79 now = jiffies;
>> 80 count = 0;
>> 81 while (jiffies == now) {
>> 82 mb(); /* prevent loop optimzation */
>> 83 tmpl->do_2(BENCH_SIZE, b1, b2);
>> 84 mb();
>> 85 count++;
>> 86 mb();
>> 87 }
>> 88 if (count > max)
>> (gdb) list *(calibrate_xor_blocks+0x57)
>> 0xda9 is in calibrate_xor_blocks (/usr0/export/dev/bharrosh/git/pub/scsi-misc/crypto/xor.c:137).
>> 132 "checksumming function: %s\n",
>> 133 fastest->name);
>> 134 xor_speed(fastest);
>> 135 } else {
>> 136 printk(KERN_INFO "xor: measuring software checksum speed\n");
>> 137 XOR_TRY_TEMPLATES;
>> 138 fastest = template_list;
>> 139 for (f = fastest; f; f = f->next)
>> 140 if (f->speed > fastest->speed)
>> 141 fastest = f;
>> (gdb) q
>>
>> So it looks like the code in UML links the include/asm-generic/xor.h and that it gets
>> stuck. Any thing changed in this area in last merge window?
>>
>> Before I start the very difficult bisect?
>>
>> Thanks for any tips
>> Boaz
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
Thanks,
//richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
