On 2014-06-17 17:28, Dave Chinner wrote:
[cc linux-mm]
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 07:23:58AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-06-16 16:27, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 01:30:42PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 06/16/2014 01:19 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:58:46PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
On 2014-06-15 20:00, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 08:33:23AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
FWIW, the non-linear system CPU overhead of a fs_mark test I've been
running isn't anything related to XFS. The async fsync workqueue
results in several thousand worker threads dispatching IO
concurrently across 16 CPUs:
$ ps -ef |grep kworker |wc -l
4693
$
Profiles from 3.15 + xfs for-next + xfs aio_fsync show:
- 51.33% [kernel] [k] percpu_ida_alloc
- percpu_ida_alloc
+ 85.73% blk_mq_wait_for_tags
+ 14.23% blk_mq_get_tag
- 14.25% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- 66.26% virtio_queue_rq
- __blk_mq_run_hw_queue
- 99.65% blk_mq_run_hw_queue
+ 99.47% blk_mq_insert_requests
+ 0.53% blk_mq_insert_request
.....
- 7.91% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- 69.59% __schedule
- 86.49% schedule
+ 47.72% percpu_ida_alloc
+ 21.75% worker_thread
+ 19.12% schedule_timeout
....
+ 18.06% blk_mq_make_request
Runtime:
real 4m1.243s
user 0m47.724s
sys 11m56.724s
Most of the excessive CPU usage is coming from the blk-mq layer, and
XFS is barely showing up in the profiles at all - the IDA tag
allocator is burning 8 CPUs at about 60,000 write IOPS....
I know that the tag allocator has been rewritten, so I tested
against a current a current Linus kernel with the XFS aio-fsync
patch. The results are all over the place - from several sequential
runs of the same test (removing the files in between so each tests
starts from an empty fs):
Wall time sys time IOPS files/s
4m58.151s 11m12.648s 30,000 13,500
4m35.075s 12m45.900s 45,000 15,000
3m10.665s 11m15.804s 65,000 21,000
3m27.384s 11m54.723s 85,000 20,000
3m59.574s 11m12.012s 50,000 16,500
4m12.704s 12m15.720s 50,000 17,000
The 3.15 based kernel was pretty consistent around the 4m10 mark,
generally only +/-10s in runtime and not much change in system time.
The files/s rate reported by fs_mark doesn't vary that much, either.
So the new tag allocator seems to be no better in terms of IO
dispatch scalability, yet adds significant variability to IO
performance.
What I noticed is a massive jump in context switch overhead: from
around 250,000/s to over 800,000/s and the CPU profiles show that
this comes from the new tag allocator:
- 34.62% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- 58.22% prepare_to_wait
100.00% bt_get
blk_mq_get_tag
__blk_mq_alloc_request
blk_mq_map_request
blk_sq_make_request
generic_make_request
- 22.51% virtio_queue_rq
__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
....
- 21.56% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- 58.73% __schedule
- 53.42% io_schedule
99.88% bt_get
blk_mq_get_tag
__blk_mq_alloc_request
blk_mq_map_request
blk_sq_make_request
generic_make_request
- 35.58% schedule
+ 49.31% worker_thread
+ 32.45% schedule_timeout
+ 10.35% _xfs_log_force_lsn
+ 3.10% xlog_cil_force_lsn
....
.....
Can you try with this patch?
Ok, context switches are back down in the realm of 400,000/s. It's
better, but it's still a bit higher than that the 3.15 code. XFS is
actually showing up in the context switch path profiles now...
However, performance is still excitingly variable and not much
different to not having this patch applied. System time is unchanged
(still around the 11m20s +/- 1m) and IOPS, wall time and files/s all
show significant variance (at least +/-25%) from run to run. The
worst case is not as slow as the unpatched kernel, but it's no
better than the 3.15 worst case.
Profiles on a slow run look like:
- 43.43% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- _raw_spin_unlock_irq
- 64.23% blk_sq_make_request
generic_make_request
submit_bio ¿
+ 26.79% __schedule
...
- 15.00% [kernel] [k] _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore
- 39.81% virtio_queue_rq
__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
+ 24.13% complete
+ 17.74% prepare_to_wait_exclusive
+ 9.66% remove_wait_queue
Looks like the main contention problem is in blk_sq_make_request().
Also, there looks to be quite a bit of lock contention on the tag
wait queues given that this patch made prepare_to_wait_exclusive()
suddenly show up in the profiles.
FWIW, on a fast run there is very little time in
blk_sq_make_request() lock contention, and overall spin lock/unlock
overhead of these two functions is around 10% each....
So, yes, the patch reduces context switches but doesn't really
reduce system time, improve performance noticably or address the
run-to-run variability issue...
OK, so one more thing to try. With the same patch still applied,
could you edit block/blk-mq-tag.h and change
BT_WAIT_QUEUES = 8,
to
BT_WAIT_QUEUES = 1,
and see if that smoothes things out?
Ok, that smoothes things out to the point where I can see the
trigger for the really nasty variable performance. The trigger is
the machine running out of free memory. i.e. direct reclaim of clean
pages for the data in the new files in the page cache drives the
performance down by 25-50% and introduces significant variability.
So the variability doesn't seem to be solely related to the tag
allocator; it is contributing some via wait queue contention,
but it's definitely not the main contributor, nor the trigger...
MM-folk - the VM is running fake-numa=4 and has 16GB of RAM, and
each step in the workload is generating 3.2GB of dirty pages (i.e.
just on the dirty throttling threshold). It then does a concurrent
asynchronous fsync of the 800,000 dirty files it just created,
leaving 3.2GB of clean pages in the cache. The workload iterates
this several times. Once the machine runs out of free memory (2.5
iterations in) performance drops by about 30% on average, but the
drop varies between 20-60% randomly. I'm not concerned by a 30% drop
when memory fills up - I'm concerned by the volatility of the drop
that occurs. e.g:
FSUse% Count Size Files/sec App Overhead
0 800000 4096 29938.0 13459475
0 1600000 4096 28023.7 15662387
0 2400000 4096 23704.6 16451761
0 3200000 4096 16976.8 15029056
0 4000000 4096 21858.3 15591604
Iteration 3 is where memory fills, and you can see that performance
dropped by 25%. Iteration 4 drops another 25%, then iteration 5
regains it. If I keep running the workload for more iterations, this
is pretty typical of the iteration-to-iteration variability, even
though every iteration is identical in behaviour as are the initial
conditions (i.e. memory full of clean, used-once pages).
This didn't happen in 3.15.0, but the behaviour may have been masked
by the block layer tag allocator CPU overhead dominating the system
behaviour.
OK, that's reassuring. I'll do some testing with the cyclic wait queues,
but probably not until Thursday. Alexanders patches might potentially
fix the variability as well, but if we can make-do without the multiple
wait queues, I'd much rather just kill it.
Did you see any spinlock contention with BT_WAIT_QUEUES = 1?
On the road the next few days, so might take me a few days to get
back to this. I was able to reproduce the horrible contention on the
wait queue, but everything seemed to behave nicely with just the
exclusive_wait/batch_wakeup for me. Looks like I might have to fire
up kvm and set it you like you.
I'm guessing that the difference is that you weren't driving the
machine into memory reclaim at the same time.
My testing was purely O_DIRECT, so no, no reclaim at all. I was only
focused on the lock contention in there, and the patch completely got
rid of that.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>