ISCSI target engine core LIO(in kernel) performance bottle neck analyze
From: Zhu Lingshan
Date: Tue Mar 17 2015 - 05:14:36 EST
Hi,
I have been working on LIO performance work for weeks, now I can release
some results and issues, in this mail, I would like to talk about issues
on CPU usage and transaction speed. I really hope can get some hints
and suggestion from you!
Summary:
(1) In 512Bytes, single process, reading case, I found the transaction
speed is 2.818MB/s in a 1GB network, the running CPU core in initiator
side spent over 80% cycles in waiting, while one core of LIO side spent
43.6% in Sys, even no cycles in user, no cycles in wait. I assume the
bottle neck of this small package, one thread transaction is the lock
operations on LIO target side.
(2) In 512Bytes, 32 process, reading case, I found the transaction speed
is 11.259MB/s in a 1GB network, I found there is only one CPU core in
the LIO target side running, and the load is 100% in SYS. While other
cores totally free, no workload. I assume the bottle neck of this small
package, multi threads transaction is the that, no workload balance on
target side.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are all detailed information:
My environment:
Two blade severs with E5 CPU and 32GB ram, one run LIO and the other is
the initiator.
ISCSI backstore: RAM disk, I use the command line "modprobe brd
rd_size=4200000 max_part=1 rd_nr=1" to create it.(/dev/ram0, and in the
initiator side it is /dev/sdc).
1GB network.
OS: SUSE Enterprise Linux Sever on both sides, kernel version 3.12.28-4.
Initiator: Open-iSCSI Initiator 2.0873-20.4
LIO-utils: version: 4.1-14.6
My tools: perf, netperf, nmon, FIO
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For case (1):
In 512Bytes, single process, reading case, I found the transaction speed
is 2.897MB/s in a 1GB network, the running CPU core in initiator side
spent over 80% cycles in waiting, while one core of LIO side spent 43.6%
in Sys, even no cycles in user, no cycles in wait.
I run this test case by the command line:
fio -filename=/dev/sdc -direct=1 -rw=read -bs=512 -size=2G -numjobs=1
-runtime=600 -group_reporting -name=test.
part of the results:
Jobs: 1 (f=1): [R(1)] [100.0% done] [2818KB/0KB/0KB /s] [5636/0/0 iops]
[eta 00m:00s]
test: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=1258: Mon Mar 16 21:48:14 2015
read : io=262144KB, bw=2897.8KB/s, iops=5795, runt= 90464msec
I run a netperf test with buffer set to 512Bytes and 512Bytes per
package, get a transaction speed of 6.5MB/s, better than our LIO did, so
I tried nmon and perf to find why.
This is the screen shot of what nmon show about CPU in the initiator side:
ânmonâ14iâââââââââââââââââââââHostname=INITâââââââââRefresh=10secs
âââ21:30.42âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â CPU Utilisation
âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ
â
â---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
â
âCPU User% Sys% Wait% Idle|0 |25 |50 |75 100| â
â 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 99.8|> | â
â 2 0.1 0.1 0.0 99.8|> | â
â 3 0.0 0.2 0.0 99.8|> | â
â 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 6 0.0 3.1 0.0 96.9|s> | â
â 7 2.8 12.2 83.8
1.2|UssssssWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW>| â
â 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 10 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 11 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â 12 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0|> | â
â---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
â
âAvg 0.2 1.1 5.8 92.8|WW> | â
â---------------------------+-------------------------------------------------+
We can see on the initiator side, there is only one core running, that
is ok, but this core spent 83.8% in wait, that seems strange, while on
the LIO target side, the only running core spent 43.6% in SYS, even no
cycles in user or wait. Why the initiator waited while there is still
some free resource(CPU core cycles) on the target side? Then I use perf
record to monitor the LIO target, I find locks, especially spin lock
consumed nearly 40% CPU cycles. I assume this is the reason why the
initiator side shown wait and low speed,lock operation is the bottle
neck of this case(small package, single thread transaction) Do you have
any comments on that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For case (2):
In 512Bytes, 32 process, reading case, I found the transaction speed is
11.259MB/s in a 1GB network, I found there is only one CPU core in the
LIO target side running, and the load is 100% in SYS. While other cores
totally free, no workload.
I run the case by this command line:
fio -filename=/dev/sdc -direct=1 -rw=read -bs=512 -size=4GB
-numjobs=32 -runtime=600 -group_reporting -name=test.
The speed is 11.259MB/s. On the LIO target side, I found only one cpu
core running, all other cores totally free. It seems that there is not
a workload balance scheduler. It seems the bottle neck of this
case(small package, multi threads transaction). Is it nice to be some
code to balance the transaction traffic to all cores? Hope can get some
hints, suggestion and why from you experts!
Thanks a lot for your time to read my mail.
Have a nice day!
BR
Zhu Lingshan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/