On 02/01/18 21:53, Chintan Pandya wrote:
> On 2/2/2018 2:39 AM, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 02/01/18 06:24, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> And so
>>> far, no one has explained why a bigger cache got slower.
>> Yes, I still find that surprising.
> I thought a bit about this. And realized that increasing the cache size
> should help improve the performance only if there are too many misses with
> the smaller cache. So, from my experiments some time back, I looked up the
> logs and saw the access pattern. Seems like, there is *not_too_much* juggling
> during look up by phandles.
> See the access pattern here:
Thanks! Very interesting.
I was somewhat limited at playing detective with this, because the phandle
values are not consistent with the dts file you are currently working
with (arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sda670-mtp.dts). For example, I could
not determine what the target nodes for the hot phandle values. That
information _could_ possibly point at algorithms within the devicetree
core code that could be improved. Or maybe not. Hard to tell until
actually looking at the data.
Anyway, some observations were possible.
There are 485 unique phandle values searched for.
The ten phandle values most frequently referenced account for
3932 / 6745 (or 58%) of all references.
Without the corresponding devicetree I can not tell how many nodes
need to be scanned to locate each of these ten values (using the
existing algorithm). Thus I can not determine how much scanning
would be eliminated by caching just the nodes corresponding to
these ten phandle values.
There are 89 phandle values that were searched for 10 times
or more, accounting for 86% of the searches.
Only 164 phandle values were searched for just one time.
303 phandle values were searched for just one or two times.
Here is a more complete picture:
10 values each used 100 or more times; searches: 3932 58%
11 values each used 90 or more times; searches: 3994 59%
12 values each used 80 or more times; searches: 4045 60%
13 values each used 70 or more times; searches: 4093 61%
14 values each used 60 or more times; searches: 4136 61%
15 values each used 50 or more times; searches: 4178 62%
18 values each used 40 or more times; searches: 4300 64%
32 values each used 30 or more times; searches: 4774 71%
54 values each used 20 or more times; searches: 5293 78%
89 values each used 10 or more times; searches: 5791 86%
93 values each used 9 or more times; searches: 5827 86%
117 values each used 8 or more times; searches: 6019 89%
122 values each used 7 or more times; searches: 6054 90%
132 values each used 6 or more times; searches: 6114 91%
144 values each used 5 or more times; searches: 6174 92%
162 values each used 4 or more times; searches: 6246 93%
181 values each used 3 or more times; searches: 6303 93%
320 values each used 2 or more times; searches: 6581 98%
484 values each used 1 or more times; searches: 6746 100%
A single system does not prove anything. It is possible that
other devicetrees would exhibit similarly long tailed behavior,
but that is just wild speculation on my part.
_If_ the long tail is representative of other systems, then
identifying a few hot spots could be useful, but fixing them
is not likely to significantly reduce the overhead of calls
to of_find_node_by_phandle(). Some method of reducing the
overhead of each call would be the answer for a system of
> Sample log is pasted below where number in the last is phandle value.
> Line 8853: [ 37.425405] OF: want to search this 262
> Line 8854: [ 37.425453] OF: want to search this 262
> Line 8855: [ 37.425499] OF: want to search this 262
> Line 8856: [ 37.425549] OF: want to search this 15
> Line 8857: [ 37.425599] OF: want to search this 5
> Line 8858: [ 37.429989] OF: want to search this 253
> Line 8859: [ 37.430058] OF: want to search this 253
> Line 8860: [ 37.430217] OF: want to search this 253
> Line 8861: [ 37.430278] OF: want to search this 253
> Line 8862: [ 37.430337] OF: want to search this 253
> Line 8863: [ 37.430399] OF: want to search this 254
> Line 8864: [ 37.430597] OF: want to search this 254
> Line 8865: [ 37.430656] OF: want to search this 254
> Above explains why results with cache size 64 and 128 have almost similar
> results. Now, for cache size 256 we have degrading performance. I don't have
> a good theory here but I'm assuming that by making large SW cache, we miss
> the benefits of real HW cache which is typically smaller than our array size.
> Also, in my set up, I've set max_cpu=1 to reduce the variance. That again,
> should affect the cache holding pattern in HW and affect the perf numbers.