Hi, Christoph, "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes:
> Hi, Christoph, > > "Huang, Ying" <ying.hu...@intel.com> writes: > >> Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> writes: >> >>> Snipping the long contest: >>> >>> I think there are three observations here: >>> >>> (1) removing the mark_page_accessed (which is the only significant >>> change in the parent commit) hurts the >>> aim7/1BRD_48G-xfs-disk_rr-3000-performance/ivb44 test. >>> I'd still rather stick to the filemap version and let the >>> VM people sort it out. How do the numbers for this test >>> look for XFS vs say ext4 and btrfs? >>> (2) lots of additional spinlock contention in the new case. A quick >>> check shows that I fat-fingered my rewrite so that we do >>> the xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag call now for the pure lookup >>> case, and pretty much all new cycles come from that. >>> (3) Boy, are those xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag calls expensive, and >>> we're already doing way to many even without my little bug above. >>> >>> So I've force pushed a new version of the iomap-fixes branch with >>> (2) fixed, and also a little patch to xfs_inode_set_eofblocks_tag a >>> lot less expensive slotted in before that. Would be good to see >>> the numbers with that. >> >> For the original reported regression, the test result is as follow, >> >> ========================================================================================= >> compiler/cpufreq_governor/debug-setup/disk/fs/kconfig/load/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase: >> >> gcc-6/performance/profile/1BRD_48G/xfs/x86_64-rhel/3000/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb44/disk_wrt/aim7 >> >> commit: >> f0c6bcba74ac51cb77aadb33ad35cb2dc1ad1506 (parent of first bad commit) >> 68a9f5e7007c1afa2cf6830b690a90d0187c0684 (first bad commit) >> 99091700659f4df965e138b38b4fa26a29b7eade (base of your fixes branch) >> bf4dc6e4ecc2a3d042029319bc8cd4204c185610 (head of your fixes branch) >> >> f0c6bcba74ac51cb 68a9f5e7007c1afa2cf6830b69 99091700659f4df965e138b38b >> bf4dc6e4ecc2a3d042029319bc >> ---------------- -------------------------- -------------------------- >> -------------------------- >> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev >> %change %stddev >> \ | \ | \ >> | \ >> 484435 ± 0% -13.3% 420004 ± 0% -17.0% 402250 ± 0% >> -15.6% 408998 ± 0% aim7.jobs-per-min > > It appears the original reported regression hasn't bee resolved by your > commit. Could you take a look at the test results and the perf data? Any update to this regression? Best Regards, Huang, Ying >> >> And the perf data is as follow, >> >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.intel_idle": 20.25, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.memset_erms": 11.72, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.copy_user_enhanced_fast_string": 8.37, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__block_commit_write.isra.21": 3.49, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.block_write_end": 1.77, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath": 1.63, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.unlock_page": 1.58, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.___might_sleep": 1.56, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__block_write_begin_int": 1.33, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic": 1.23, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.up_write": 1.21, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__mark_inode_dirty": 1.18, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.down_write": 1.06, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.mark_buffer_dirty": 0.94, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.generic_write_end": 0.92, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__radix_tree_lookup": 0.91, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock": 0.81, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath": 0.79, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__might_sleep": 0.79, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.xfs_file_iomap_begin_delay.isra.9": 0.7, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.__list_del_entry": 0.7, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.vfs_write": 0.69, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.drop_buffers": 0.68, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.xfs_file_write_iter": 0.67, >> "perf-profile.func.cycles-pp.rwsem_spin_on_owner": 0.67, >> >> Best Regards, >> Huang, Ying >> _______________________________________________ >> LKP mailing list >> l...@lists.01.org >> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/lkp
