Re: [4.2, Regression] Queued spinlocks cause major XFS performance regression

[Waiman Long]

On 09/06/2015 07:47 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:32:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 06:12:34PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > You probably don't even need a VM to reproduce it - that would
> > > certainly be an interesting counterpoint if it didn't....
> > Even though you managed to restore your DEBUG_SPINLOCK performance by
> > changing virt_queued_spin_lock() to use __delay(1), I ran the thing on
> > actual hardware just to test.
> >
> > [ Note: In any case, I would recommend you use (or at least try)
> >    PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS if you use VMs, as that is where we were looking for
> >    performance, the test-and-set fallback really wasn't meant as a
> >    performance option (although it clearly sucks worse than expected).
> FSUse%        Count         Size    Files/sec     App Overhead
>       0      1600000            0     319431.5         10116018
>       0      3200000            0     307824.5         10054299
>       0      4800000            0     296971.5         10770197
>       0      6400000            0     281653.6         11748423
> ....
>
> PARAVIRT_SPINLOCKS seems to work OK these days, too. I'll leave that
> set so I'll end up testing whatever comes along down that pipe...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.

I am working on patches to improve PV qspinlock performance and will run 
your fstest to verify that there will be no regression.

Cheers,
Longman
--
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/