> On Mar 7, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/07/2018 03:23 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2018, at 3:00 PM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03/06/2018 05:30 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 2018, at 5:07 PM, Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Anna Schumaker <Anna.Schumaker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seeing a huge performance hit with this patch. I'm just running cthon over TCP, and it goes from finishing in 22 seconds to taking well over 5 minutes. I seem to only see this on the read and write tests, such as basic test5 taking a minute to finish:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ./test5: read and write
>>>>>> wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 60.35 seconds (173737 bytes/sec)
>>>>>> read 1048576 byte file 10 times in 0.0 seconds (-2147483648 bytes/sec)
>>>>>> ./test5 ok.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. This looks like write is impacted, but this test doesn't
>>>>> actually perform any reads on the wire. Try iozone with -I,
>>>>> maybe? That would show results for both read and write.
>>>>
>>>> Hum.
>>>>
>>>> Stock v4.16-rc4:
>>>>
>>>> ./test5: read and write
>>>> wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 0.2 seconds (350811642 bytes/sec)
>>>> read 1048576 byte file 10 times in 0.0 seconds (-2147483648 bytes/sec)
>>>> ./test5 ok.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> v4.16-rc4 with my full set of patches:
>>>>
>>>> ./test5: read and write
>>>> wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 0.2 seconds (354236681 bytes/sec)
>>>> read 1048576 byte file 10 times in 0.0 seconds (-2147483648 bytes/sec)
>>>> ./test5 ok.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see a regression here. Let me know how it goes!
>>>
>>> I'm using rc4 too, so maybe it's something different in my setup?
>>
>> What is your setup, exactly? I assume your client is maybe a
>> single CPU guest, and the server is the same, and both are
>> hosted on one system?
>
> Client is single CPU kvm guest with 1 gig ram, server is also kvm on the same system with 2 cpus and 4 gigs ram.
>
>>
>>
>>> Making this change fixes the issue for me:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>> index a394b4635f8e..273847f7e455 100644
>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>> @@ -987,8 +987,6 @@ bool xprt_prepare_transmit(struct rpc_task *task)
>>> task->tk_status = -EAGAIN;
>>> goto out_unlock;
>>> }
>>> - if (likely(!bc_prealloc(req)))
>>> - req->rq_xid = xprt_alloc_xid(xprt);
>>> ret = true;
>>> out_unlock:
>>> spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
>>> @@ -1315,6 +1313,7 @@ void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *task)
>>> req->rq_task = task;
>>> req->rq_xprt = xprt;
>>> req->rq_buffer = NULL;
>>> + req->rq_xid = xprt_alloc_xid(xprt);
>>
>> xprt_alloc_xid is just
>>
>> 1299 static inline __be32 xprt_alloc_xid(struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
>> 1300 {
>> 1301 return (__force __be32)xprt->xid++;
>> 1302 }
>>
>> I don't believe the new call site for xprt_request_init is
>> adequately serialized for this to be safe in general. That's why
>> I'm calling xprt_alloc_xid in xprt_prepare_transmit, behind the
>> transport_lock.
>
> This makes sense.
>
>>
>> However, I think we need to explain why that helps your performance
>> issue, because it doesn't make sense to me that this would make a
>> difference. Why did you think to try this change? Is there evidence
>> on the wire of XID re-use, for example?
>
> I selectively reverted parts of your original patch until I found the parts that kill my performance.
Fair enough, but that doesn't explain why your change helps. :-)
Since I can't reproduce the regression here, try this:
0. Build a kernel with the regression
1. On your client: # trace-cmd record -e sunrpc:* -e rpcrdma:*
2. Run the cthon04 basic tests
3. ^C the trace-cmd
4. Rename trace.dat
5. Repeat steps 1-4 with stock v4.16-rc4
6. tar and gzip the .dat files and send them to me
>>> req->rq_connect_cookie = xprt->connect_cookie - 1;
>>> req->rq_bytes_sent = 0;
>>> req->rq_snd_buf.len = 0;
>>>
>>>
>>> Anna
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't dug into this too deeply, but my best guess is that maybe it's due to adding a call to xprt_request_init() in net/sunrpc/clnt.c:call_reserveresult()
>>>>>
>>>>> It wasn't added there, it was moved from xprt_alloc_slot. So,
>>>>> it's not new work per-RPC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any additional information would be appreciated!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> Anna
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/05/2018 03:13 PM, Chuck Lever wrote:
>>>>>>> alloc_slot is a transport-specific op, but initializing an rpc_rqst
>>>>>>> is common to all transports. Move initialization to common code in
>>>>>>> preparation for adding a transport-specific alloc_slot to xprtrdma.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h | 1 +
>>>>>>> net/sunrpc/clnt.c | 1 +
>>>>>>> net/sunrpc/xprt.c | 12 +++++++-----
>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
>>>>>>> index 5fea0fb..9784e28 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
>>>>>>> @@ -324,6 +324,7 @@ struct xprt_class {
>>>>>>> struct rpc_xprt *xprt_create_transport(struct xprt_create *args);
>>>>>>> void xprt_connect(struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> void xprt_reserve(struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> +void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> void xprt_retry_reserve(struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> int xprt_reserve_xprt(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> int xprt_reserve_xprt_cong(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>>>>> index 6e432ec..226f558 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/clnt.c
>>>>>>> @@ -1546,6 +1546,7 @@ void rpc_force_rebind(struct rpc_clnt *clnt)
>>>>>>> task->tk_status = 0;
>>>>>>> if (status >= 0) {
>>>>>>> if (task->tk_rqstp) {
>>>>>>> + xprt_request_init(task);
>>>>>>> task->tk_action = call_refresh;
>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>>>>> index 70f0050..a394b46 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
>>>>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
>>>>>>> * Local functions
>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>> static void xprt_init(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, struct net *net);
>>>>>>> -static void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *, struct rpc_xprt *);
>>>>>>> +static __be32 xprt_alloc_xid(struct rpc_xprt *xprt);
>>>>>>> static void xprt_connect_status(struct rpc_task *task);
>>>>>>> static int __xprt_get_cong(struct rpc_xprt *, struct rpc_task *);
>>>>>>> static void __xprt_put_cong(struct rpc_xprt *, struct rpc_rqst *);
>>>>>>> @@ -987,6 +987,8 @@ bool xprt_prepare_transmit(struct rpc_task *task)
>>>>>>> task->tk_status = -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>> goto out_unlock;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> + if (likely(!bc_prealloc(req)))
>>>>>>> + req->rq_xid = xprt_alloc_xid(xprt);
>>>>>>> ret = true;
>>>>>>> out_unlock:
>>>>>>> spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
>>>>>>> @@ -1163,10 +1165,10 @@ void xprt_alloc_slot(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, struct rpc_task *task)
>>>>>>> out_init_req:
>>>>>>> xprt->stat.max_slots = max_t(unsigned int, xprt->stat.max_slots,
>>>>>>> xprt->num_reqs);
>>>>>>> + spin_unlock(&xprt->reserve_lock);
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> task->tk_status = 0;
>>>>>>> task->tk_rqstp = req;
>>>>>>> - xprt_request_init(task, xprt);
>>>>>>> - spin_unlock(&xprt->reserve_lock);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xprt_alloc_slot);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -1303,8 +1305,9 @@ static inline void xprt_init_xid(struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
>>>>>>> xprt->xid = prandom_u32();
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -static void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *task, struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
>>>>>>> +void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *task)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> + struct rpc_xprt *xprt = task->tk_xprt;
>>>>>>> struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&req->rq_list);
>>>>>>> @@ -1312,7 +1315,6 @@ static void xprt_request_init(struct rpc_task *task, struct rpc_xprt *xprt)
>>>>>>> req->rq_task = task;
>>>>>>> req->rq_xprt = xprt;
>>>>>>> req->rq_buffer = NULL;
>>>>>>> - req->rq_xid = xprt_alloc_xid(xprt);
>>>>>>> req->rq_connect_cookie = xprt->connect_cookie - 1;
>>>>>>> req->rq_bytes_sent = 0;
>>>>>>> req->rq_snd_buf.len = 0;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Chuck Lever
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
>>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chuck Lever
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Lever
--
Chuck Lever
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
