Dave Chinner wrote on 2016-08-05:
> [ cut to just the important points ]
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 06:40:42PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-08-02 at 10:21 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> If I drop the fsync from the
>>> buffered IO path, bandwidth remains the same but runtime drops to
>>> 0.55-0.57s, so again the buffered IO write path is faster than DAX
>>> while doing more work.
>>
>> I do not think the test results are relevant on this point because both
>> buffered and dax write() paths use uncached copy to avoid clflush. The
>> buffered path uses cached copy to the page cache and then use uncached copy to
>> PMEM via writeback. Therefore, the buffered IO path also benefits from using
>> uncached copy to avoid clflush.
>
> Except that I tested without the writeback path for buffered IO, so
> there was a direct comparison for single cached copy vs single
> uncached copy.
>
> The undenial fact is that a write() with a single cached copy with
> all the overhead of dirty page tracking is /faster/ than a much
> shorter, simpler IO path that uses an uncached copy. That's what the
> numbers say....
>
>> Cached copy (req movq) is slightly faster than uncached copy,
>
> Not according to Boaz - he claims that uncached is 20% faster than
> cached. How about you two get together, do some benchmarking and get
> your story straight, eh?
>
>> and should be
>> used for writing to the page cache. For writing to PMEM, however, additional
>> clflush can be expensive, and allocating cachelines for PMEM leads to evict
>> application's cachelines.
>
> I keep hearing people tell me why cached copies are slower, but
> no-one is providing numbers to back up their statements. The only
> numbers we have are the ones I've published showing cached copies w/
> full dirty tracking is faster than uncached copy w/o dirty tracking.
>
> Show me the numbers that back up your statements, then I'll listen
> to you.
Here are some numbers for a particular scenario, and the code is below.
Time (in seconds) to copy a 16KiB buffer 1M times to a 4MiB NVDIMM buffer
(1M total memcpy()s). For the cached+clflush case, the flushes are done
every 4MiB (which seems slightly faster than flushing every 16KiB):
NUMA local NUMA remote
Cached+clflush 13.5 37.1
movnt 1.0 1.3
In the code below, pmem_persist() does the CLFLUSH(es) on the given range,
and pmem_memcpy_persist() does non-temporal MOVs with an SFENCE:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <libpmem.h>
/*
* gcc -Wall -O2 -m64 -mcx16 -o memcpyperf memcpyperf.c -lpmem
*
* Not sure if -mcx16 allows gcc to use faster memcpy bits?
*/
/*
* our source buffer. we'll copy this much at a time.
* align it so that memcpy() doesn't have to do anything funny.
*/
char __attribute__((aligned(0x100))) src[4 * 4096];
int
main(
int argc,
char* argv[]
)
{
char* path;
char mode;
int nloops;
char* dstbase;
size_t dstsz;
int ispmem;
int cpysz;
char* dst;
if (argc != 4) {
fprintf(stderr, "ERROR: usage: "
"memcpyperf [cached | nt] PATH NLOOPS\n");
exit(1);
}
mode = argv[1][0];
path = argv[2];
nloops = atoi(argv[3]);
dstbase = pmem_map_file(path, 0, 0, 0, &dstsz, &ispmem);
if (NULL == dstbase) {
perror(path);
exit(1);
}
if (!ispmem)
fprintf(stderr, "WARNING: %s is not pmem\n", path);
if (dstsz < sizeof(src))
cpysz = dstsz;
else
cpysz = sizeof(src);
fprintf(stderr, "INFO: dst %p src %p dstsz %ld cpysz %d\n",
dstbase, src, dstsz, cpysz);
dst = dstbase;
while (nloops--) {
if (mode == 'c') {
memcpy(dst, src, cpysz);
/*
* we could do the clflush here on the 16KiB we just
* wrote, but with a 4MiB file (dst buffer) and 16KiB
* src buffer, it seems slightly faster to flush the
* entire 4MiB below
*/
//pmem_persist(dst, cpysz);
}
else {
pmem_memcpy_persist(dst, src, cpysz);
}
dst += cpysz;
if ((dst + cpysz) - dstbase > dstsz) {
dst = dstbase;
/* see note above */
if (mode == 'c')
pmem_persist(dst, dstsz);
}
}
exit(0);
} /* main() */
EOF
Sample runs:
$ numactl -N0 time -p ./memcpyperf c /pmem0/brian/cpt 1000000
INFO: dst 0x7f3f1a000000 src 0x601200 dstsz 4194304 cpysz 16384
real 13.53
user 13.53
sys 0.00
$ numactl -N0 time -p ./memcpyperf n /pmem0/brian/cpt 1000000
INFO: dst 0x7f2b54600000 src 0x601200 dstsz 4194304 cpysz 16384
real 1.04
user 1.04
sys 0.00
$ numactl -N1 time -p ./memcpyperf c /pmem0/brian/cpt 1000000
INFO: dst 0x7f8f8c200000 src 0x601200 dstsz 4194304 cpysz 16384
real 37.13
user 37.15
sys 0.00
$ numactl -N1 time -p ./memcpyperf n /pmem0/brian/cpt 1000000
INFO: dst 0x7f77f7400000 src 0x601200 dstsz 4194304 cpysz 16384
real 1.24
user 1.24
sys 0.00
Brian
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
