Tracking tbench troubles
The tbench benchmark is meant to measure networking performance; it consists of a collection of processes quickly making lots of small requests from a server process. Since the requests are small, there is not much time spent actually moving data; it's all a matter of shifting small packets around - and scheduling between the processes. Back in August, Christoph Lameter reported that tbench performance in the mainline kernel had been declining for some time. His system was able to move 3208 MB/sec with a 2.6.22 kernel, but only 2571 MB/sec with a 2.6.27-rc kernel. Each of the releases in between showed a decline from the one which came before, with 2.6.25 showing an especially big hit. Others were able to reproduce the results, and they engaged in various rounds of speculation on where the problem might be, but it seems that, initially, nobody actually dug into the system to see what was going on.
At linux.conf.au 2007, Andi Kleen gave a talk describing various types of kernel hackers. One of those was the "Russian mathematician" who, he suspected, was often a room full of talented developers operating under a single name. Evgeniy Polyakov can only have reinforced that view when, in early October, he tracked down the biggest offending commit through a process which, he says, involved "just [a] couple of hundreds of compilations." In the process, he put together a plot of tbench performance which, he says, is suitable for scaring children. Through a massive amount of work, he was able to point the finger at a scheduler patch - not something in the networking stack at all.
In particular, Evgeniy found that the patch adding high-resolution preemption ticks was the problem. The idea behind this patch was to make time slices more accurate by scheduling preemption at just the right time. It makes sense; once the regular clock tick has been eliminated, there is no reason not to arrange for preemption to happen when the scheduling algorithm says it should. Unfortunately, it seems that this change also adds sufficient overhead to slow down tbench performance considerably; when Evgeniy backed it out, his performance went from 373 MB/sec to 455 MB/sec. That would seem to be a pretty clear indication that something is amiss with high-resolution preemption ticks.
At this point, the public discussion went quiet, though it appears that a number of developers were working on it off-list. David Miller eventually tracked down the worst of the trouble to the wakeup code, something he was rather vocally unhappy about having had to do. Eventually a patch was merged (for 2.6.28-rc2) disabling the high-resolution preemption tick feature. Since the discussion is private, it's not quite clear why this change took as long as it did. But there's a couple of plausible reasons. One is that this particular feature is disabled by default anyway, so most users will not encounter the performance problem it creates.
But there is also the question of weighing the benchmark result against the effects on other, "real" workloads. Ingo Molnar said:
So, by this view, performance on scheduler-intensive benchmarks must be weighed against the wider value of other scheduler enhancements. David Miller has a different view of the situation, though:
In David's view, scheduler performance has been getting consistently worse since the switch to the completely fair scheduler in 2.6.23. He would like to see some energy put into recovering some of the performance of the pre-CFS scheduler; in particular, he thinks that Ingo and company should work to fix (what he sees as) a regression that they caused.
For the time being, the worst performance regression has been "fixed" by disabling the high-resolution preemption tick feature; Ingo says that the feature will not come back until it can be supported without slowing things down. But the scheduler seems to have gotten slower in a number of other ways as well. Your editor will make a prediction here: now that the issue has been called out in such clear terms, somebody will find the time to fix these problems to the point that the CFS scheduler will be faster than the O(1) scheduler which preceded it.
Beyond that, there are suggestions that the
scheduler cannot take the blame for all of the observed regressions in
tbench results. So developers will have to look at the rest of the system
to figure out what's going on. The good news is that this is a clear
challenge with an
objective way to measure success. Once a problem reaches that level of
clarity, it's usually just a matter of some hacking.
| Index entries for this article | |
|---|---|
| Kernel | Benchmarking |
| Kernel | Scheduler/Testing and benchmarking |