Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 22:51:12 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Memory allocation performance Message-ID: <20080202224923.T66602@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <47A4F1AF.9090306@FreeBSD.org> References: <47A25412.3010301@FreeBSD.org> <47A25A0D.2080508@elischer.org> <47A2C2A2.5040109@FreeBSD.org> <20080201185435.X88034@fledge.watson.org> <47A43873.40801@FreeBSD.org> <20080202095658.R63379@fledge.watson.org> <47A4E934.1050207@FreeBSD.org> <47A4F1AF.9090306@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote: > Alexander Motin wrote: >> Robert Watson wrote: >>> Hence my request for drilling down a bit on profiling -- the question I'm >>> asking is whether profiling shows things running or taking time that >>> shouldn't be. >> >> I have not yet understood why does it happend, but hwpmc shows huge amount >> of "p4-resource-stall"s in UMA functions: > >> For this moment I have invent two possible explanation. One is that due to >> UMA's cyclic block allocation order it does not fits CPU caches and another >> that it is somehow related to critical_exit(), which possibly can cause >> context switch. Does anybody have better explanation how such small and >> simple in this part function can cause such results? > > You can look at the raw output from pmcstat, which is a collection of > instruction pointers that you can feed to e.g. addr2line to find out exactly > where in those functions the events are occurring. This will often help to > track down the precise causes. There was, FYI, a report a few years ago that there was a measurable improvement from allocating off the free bucket rather than maintaining separate alloc and free buckets. It sounded good at the time but I was never able to reproduce the benefits in my test environment. Now might be a good time to try to revalidate that. Basically, the goal would be to make the pcpu cache FIFO as much as possible as that maximizes the chances that the newly allocated object already has lines in the cache. It's a fairly trivial tweak to the UMA allocation code. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080202224923.T66602>