Re: [linus:master] [mm] f95bdb700b: stress-ng.ramfs.ops_per_sec -88.8% regression

From: Qi Zheng
Date: Wed May 24 2023 - 07:23:12 EST




On 2023/5/24 19:08, Qi Zheng wrote:


[...]


Well, I just ran the following command and reproduced the result:

stress-ng --timeout 60 --times --verify --metrics-brief --ramfs 9 &

1) with commit 42c9db3970483:

stress-ng: info:  [11023] setting to a 60 second run per stressor
stress-ng: info:  [11023] dispatching hogs: 9 ramfs
stress-ng: info:  [11023] stressor       bogo ops real time  usr time sys time   bogo ops/s     bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info:  [11023]                           (secs)    (secs) (secs)   (real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info:  [11023] ramfs            774966     60.00     10.18 169.45     12915.89        4314.26
stress-ng: info:  [11023] for a 60.00s run time:
stress-ng: info:  [11023]    1920.11s available CPU time
stress-ng: info:  [11023]      10.18s user time   (  0.53%)
stress-ng: info:  [11023]     169.44s system time (  8.82%)
stress-ng: info:  [11023]     179.62s total time  (  9.35%)
stress-ng: info:  [11023] load average: 8.99 2.69 0.93
stress-ng: info:  [11023] successful run completed in 60.00s (1 min, 0.00 secs)

2) with commit f95bdb700bc6b:

stress-ng: info:  [37676] dispatching hogs: 9 ramfs
stress-ng: info:  [37676] stressor       bogo ops real time  usr time sys time   bogo ops/s     bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info:  [37676]                           (secs)    (secs) (secs)   (real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info:  [37676] ramfs            168673     60.00      1.61  39.66      2811.08        4087.47
stress-ng: info:  [37676] for a 60.10s run time:
stress-ng: info:  [37676]    1923.36s available CPU time
stress-ng: info:  [37676]       1.60s user time   (  0.08%)
stress-ng: info:  [37676]      39.66s system time (  2.06%)
stress-ng: info:  [37676]      41.26s total time  (  2.15%)
stress-ng: info:  [37676] load average: 7.69 3.63 2.36
stress-ng: info:  [37676] successful run completed in 60.10s (1 min, 0.10 secs)

The bogo ops/s (real time) did drop significantly.

And the memory reclaimation was not triggered in the whole process. so
theoretically no one is in the read critical section of shrinker_srcu.

Then I found that some stress-ng-ramfs processes were in
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state for a long time:

root       42313  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42314  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42315  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42316  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42317  7.8  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42318  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42319  7.8  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42320  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42321  7.8  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42322  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42323  7.8  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42324  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42325  7.8  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42326  0.0  0.0  69592  2068 pts/0    S    19:00   0:00 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42327  7.9  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42328  7.9  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42329  7.9  0.0  69592  1812 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]
root       42330  7.9  0.0  69592  1556 pts/0    D    19:00   0:02 stress-ng-ramfs [run]

Their call stack is as follows:

cat /proc/42330/stack

[<0>] __synchronize_srcu.part.21+0x83/0xb0
[<0>] unregister_shrinker+0x85/0xb0
[<0>] deactivate_locked_super+0x27/0x70
[<0>] cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140
[<0>] task_work_run+0x65/0x90
[<0>] exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x1ba/0x1c0
[<0>] syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x1b/0x40
[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x44/0x80
[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd

+ RCU folks, Is this result as expected? I would have thought that
synchronize_srcu() should return quickly if no one is in the read
critical section. :(


I received the message:
BOUNCE rcu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: Message too long (>100000 chars)

So add RCU folks again.

--
Thanks,
Qi