On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:29:15PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 05:20:41PM -0400, Joel Fernandes (Google) wrote:
> > This test runs kfree_rcu in a loop to measure performance of the new
> > kfree_rcu, with and without patch.
> >
> > To see improvement, run with boot parameters:
> > rcuperf.kfree_loops=2000 rcuperf.kfree_alloc_num=100 rcuperf.perf_type=kfree
> >
> > Without patch, test runs in 6.9 seconds.
> > With patch, test runs in 6.1 seconds (+13% improvement)
> >
> > If it is desired to run the test but with the traditional (non-batched)
> > kfree_rcu, for example to compare results, then you could pass along the
> > rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=1 boot parameter.
>
> You lost me on this one. You ran two runs, with rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=1
> and without? Or you ran this patch both with and without the earlier
> patch, and could have run with the patch and rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=1?
I always run the rcutorture test with patch because the patch doesn't really
do anything if rcuperf.kfree_no_batch=0. This parameter is added so that in
the future folks can compare effect of non-batching with that of the
batching. However, I can also remove the patch itself and run this test
again.
> If the latter, it would be good to try all three.
Ok, sure.
[snip]
> > ---
> > kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c | 169 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 168 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > index 7a6890b23c5f..34658760da5e 100644
> > --- a/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > +++ b/kernel/rcu/rcuperf.c
> > @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ torture_param(int, writer_holdoff, 0, "Holdoff (us) between GPs, zero to disable
> >
> > static char *perf_type = "rcu";
> > module_param(perf_type, charp, 0444);
> > -MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, ...)");
> > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(perf_type, "Type of RCU to performance-test (rcu, rcu_bh, kfree,...)");
> >
> > static int nrealreaders;
> > static int nrealwriters;
> > @@ -592,6 +592,170 @@ rcu_perf_shutdown(void *arg)
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * kfree_rcu performance tests: Start a kfree_rcu loop on all CPUs for number
> > + * of iterations and measure total time for all iterations to complete.
> > + */
> > +
> > +torture_param(int, kfree_nthreads, -1, "Number of RCU reader threads");
> > +torture_param(int, kfree_alloc_num, 8000, "Number of allocations and frees done by a thread");
> > +torture_param(int, kfree_alloc_size, 16, "Size of each allocation");
>
> Is this used? How does it relate to KFREE_OBJ_BYTES?
You're right, I had added this before but it is unused now. Sorry about that,
I will remove it.
> > +torture_param(int, kfree_loops, 10, "Size of each allocation");
>
> I suspect that this kfree_loops string is out of date.
Yes, complete screw up, will update it.
> > +torture_param(int, kfree_no_batch, 0, "Use the non-batching (slower) version of kfree_rcu");
>
> All of these need to be added to kernel-parameters.txt. Along with
> any added by the earlier patch, for that matter.
Sure, should I split that into a separate patch?
> > +static struct task_struct **kfree_reader_tasks;
> > +static int kfree_nrealthreads;
> > +static atomic_t n_kfree_perf_thread_started;
> > +static atomic_t n_kfree_perf_thread_ended;
> > +
> > +#define KFREE_OBJ_BYTES 8
> > +
> > +struct kfree_obj {
> > + char kfree_obj[KFREE_OBJ_BYTES];
> > + struct rcu_head rh;
> > +};
> > +
> > +void kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(struct rcu_head *head, rcu_callback_t func);
> > +
> > +static int
> > +kfree_perf_thread(void *arg)
> > +{
> > + int i, l = 0;
>
> It is really easy to confuse "l" and "1" in some fonts, so please use
> a different name. (From the "showing my age" department: On typical
> 1970s typewriters, there was no numeral "1" -- you typed the letter
> "l" instead, thus anticipating at least the first digit of "1337".)
:-D Ok, I will improve the names.
> > + long me = (long)arg;
> > + struct kfree_obj **alloc_ptrs;
> > + u64 start_time, end_time;
> > +
> > + VERBOSE_PERFOUT_STRING("kfree_perf_thread task started");
> > + set_cpus_allowed_ptr(current, cpumask_of(me % nr_cpu_ids));
> > + set_user_nice(current, MAX_NICE);
> > + atomic_inc(&n_kfree_perf_thread_started);
> > +
> > + alloc_ptrs = (struct kfree_obj **)kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj *) * kfree_alloc_num,
> > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!alloc_ptrs)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + start_time = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
>
> Don't you want to announce that you started here rather than above in
> order to avoid (admittedly slight) measurement inaccuracies?
I did not follow, are you referring to the measurement inaccuracy related to
the "kfree_perf_thread task started" string print? Or, are you saying that
ktime_get_mono_fast_ns() has to start earlier than over here?
> > + do {
> > + for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
> > + alloc_ptrs[i] = kmalloc(sizeof(struct kfree_obj), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!alloc_ptrs[i])
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < kfree_alloc_num; i++) {
> > + if (!kfree_no_batch) {
> > + kfree_rcu(alloc_ptrs[i], rh);
> > + } else {
> > + rcu_callback_t cb;
> > +
> > + cb = (rcu_callback_t)(unsigned long)offsetof(struct kfree_obj, rh);
> > + kfree_call_rcu_nobatch(&(alloc_ptrs[i]->rh), cb);
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
> > + schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(2);
>
> Why the two-jiffy wait in the middle of a timed test? Yes, you need
> a cond_resched() and maybe more here, but a two-jiffy wait? I don't
> see how this has any chance of getting valid measurements.
>
> What am I missing here?
I am getting pretty reliable and repeatable results with this test. The sleep
was mostly just to give the system a chance to scheduler other tasks. I can
remove the schedule and also try with just cond_resched().
The other reason for the schedule call was also to give the test a longer
running time and help with easier measurement as a result, since the test
would run otherwise for a very shortwhile. Agreed there might be a better way
to handle this issue.
(I will reply to the rest of the comments below in a bit, I am going to a
hospital now to visit a sick relative and will be back a bit later.)
thanks!
- Joel
