On 31.12.2012 08:17, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 04:13:43PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > ... >> I grabbed testsleep.c to test an arm event timer implementation, and had >> to fix a couple nits... kqueueto was missing from the names[] array, and >> I had to add a "* 1000" to a couple places where usec was stuffed into a >> timespec's tv_nsec. >> >> I also tested the calloutng_12_17 patches and the kqueue stuff behaved >> very strangely. I've rewritten kqueue timeouts at the calloutng_12_26.patch. >> Then I noticed you had a 12_26 patchset so I tested >> that (after crudely fixing a couple uninitialized var warnings), and it >> all looks good on this arm (Raspberry Pi). I'll attach the results. >> >> It's so sweet to be able to do precision sleeps. Thank you for testing, Ian. > interesting numbers, but there seems to be some problem in computing > the exact interval; delays are much larger than expected. > > In this test, the original timer code used to round to the next multiple > of 1 tick and then add another tick (except for the kqueue case), > which is exactly what you see in the second set of measurements. > > The calloutng code however seems to do something odd: > in addition to fixed overhead (some 50us, which you can see in > the tests for 1us and 300us), all delay seem to be ~10% larger > than what is requested, upper bounded to 10ms (note, the > numbers are averages so i cannot tell whether all samples are > the same or there is some distribution of values). > > I am not sure if this error is peculiar of the ARM version or also > appears on x86/amd64 but I believe it should be fixed. > > If you look at the results below: > > 1us possily ok: > for very short intervals i would expect some kind > of 'reschedule' without actually firing a timer; maybe > 50us are what it takes to do a round through the scheduler ? > > 300us probably ok > i guess the extra 50-90us are what it takes to do a round > through the scheduler > > 1000us borderline (this is the case for poll and kqueue, which are > rounded to 1ms) > here intervals seem to be increased by 10%, and i cannot see > a good reason for this (more below). > > 3000us and above: wrong > here again, the intervals seem to be 10% larger than what is > requested, perhaps limiting the error to 10-20ms. > > > Maybe the 10% extension results from creating a default 'precision' > for legacy calls, but i do not think this is done correctly. > > First of all, if users do not specify a precision themselves, the > automatically generated value should never exceed one tick. > > Second, the only point of a 'precision' parameter is to merge > requests that may be close in time, so if there is already a > timer scheduled within [Treq, Treq+precision] i will get it; > but if there no pending timer, then one should schedule it > for the requested interval. > > Davide/Alexander, any ideas ? All mentioned effects could be explained with implemented logic. 50us at 1us is probably sum of minimal latency of the hardware eventtimer on the specific platform and some software processing overhead (syscall, callout, timecouters, scheduler, etc). At later points system starts to noticeably use precision specified by kern.timecounter.alloweddeviation sysctl. It affects results from two sides: 1) extending intervals for specified percent of time to allow event aggregation, and 2) choosing time base between fast getbinuptime() and precise binuptime(). Extending interval is needed to aggregate not only callouts with each other, but also callouts with other system events, which are impossible to schedule in advance. It gives specified relative error, but no more then one CPU wakeup period in absolute: for busy CPU (not skipping hardclock() ticks) it is 1/hz, for completely idle one it can be up to 0.5s. Second point allows to reduce processing overhead by the cost of error up to 1/hz for long periods (>(100/allowed)*(1/hz)), when it is used. To get best possible precision kern.timecounter.alloweddeviation sysctl can be set to smaller value. Setting it to 0 will effectively disable all optimizations, but should give 50us precision in all cases. >> for t in 1 300 3000 30000 300000 ; do >> for m in select poll usleep nanosleep kqueue kqueueto syscall ; do >> ./testsleep $t $m >> done >> done >> >> >> With calloutng_12_26.patch... >> >> HZ=100 HZ=250 HZ=1000 >> ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- >> select 1 55.79 1 50.96 1 61.32 >> poll 1 1109.46 1 1107.86 1 1114.38 >> usleep 1 56.33 1 72.90 1 62.78 >> nanosleep 1 52.66 1 55.23 1 64.23 >> kqueue 1 1114.23 1 1113.81 1 1121.21 >> kqueueto 1 65.44 1 71.00 1 75.01 >> syscall 1 4.70 1 4.45 1 4.55 >> select 300 355.79 300 357.76 300 362.35 >> poll 300 1107.85 300 1122.55 300 1115.62 >> usleep 300 355.28 300 357.28 300 360.79 >> nanosleep 300 354.49 300 355.82 300 360.62 >> kqueue 300 1112.57 300 1118.13 300 1117.16 >> kqueueto 300 375.98 300 378.62 300 395.61 >> syscall 300 4.41 300 4.45 300 4.54 >> select 3000 3246.75 3000 3246.74 3000 3252.72 >> poll 3000 3238.10 3000 3229.12 3000 3250.10 >> usleep 3000 3242.47 3000 3237.06 3000 3249.61 >> nanosleep 3000 3238.79 3000 3231.55 3000 3248.11 >> kqueue 3000 3240.01 3000 3236.07 3000 3247.60 >> kqueueto 3000 3265.36 3000 3267.22 3000 3274.96 >> syscall 3000 4.69 3000 4.44 3000 4.50 >> select 30000 31714.60 30000 31941.17 30000 32467.69 >> poll 30000 31522.76 30000 31983.00 30000 32497.81 >> usleep 30000 31459.67 30000 31980.76 30000 32458.71 >> nanosleep 30000 31431.02 30000 31982.22 30000 32525.20 >> kqueue 30000 31466.75 30000 31873.90 30000 31973.54 >> kqueueto 30000 31564.67 30000 32522.35 30000 32475.59 >> syscall 30000 4.70 30000 4.73 30000 4.89 >> select 300000 319133.02 300000 311562.33 300000 309918.62 >> poll 300000 319604.27 300000 311422.94 300000 310000.76 >> usleep 300000 319314.60 300000 311269.69 300000 309996.34 >> nanosleep 300000 319497.58 300000 311425.40 300000 309997.13 >> kqueue 300000 309995.55 300000 303980.27 300000 309908.82 >> kqueueto 300000 319505.88 300000 311424.97 300000 309996.16 >> syscall 300000 4.41 300000 4.45 300000 4.89 >> >> >> With no patches... >> >> HZ=100 HZ=250 HZ=1000 >> ---------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------- >> select 1 19941.70 1 7989.10 1 1999.16 >> poll 1 19904.61 1 7987.32 1 1999.78 >> usleep 1 19904.95 1 7993.30 1 1999.96 >> nanosleep 1 19905.64 1 7993.71 1 1999.72 >> kqueue 1 10001.61 1 4004.00 1 1000.27 >> kqueueto 1 19904.00 1 7993.03 1 1999.54 >> syscall 1 4.04 1 4.05 1 4.75 >> select 300 19904.66 300 7998.39 300 2000.27 >> poll 300 19904.35 300 7993.47 300 1999.86 >> usleep 300 19903.96 300 7994.11 300 1999.81 >> nanosleep 300 19904.48 300 7993.77 300 1999.80 >> kqueue 300 10001.68 300 4004.18 300 1000.31 >> kqueueto 300 19997.86 300 7993.37 300 1999.59 >> syscall 300 4.01 300 4.00 300 4.32 >> select 3000 19904.80 3000 7998.85 3000 3998.43 >> poll 3000 19904.92 3000 8005.93 3000 3999.39 >> usleep 3000 19904.50 3000 7992.88 3000 3999.44 >> nanosleep 3000 19904.84 3000 7993.34 3000 3999.36 >> kqueue 3000 10001.58 3000 4003.97 3000 3000.72 >> kqueueto 3000 19903.56 3000 7993.24 3000 3999.34 >> syscall 3000 4.02 3000 4.37 3000 4.29 >> select 30000 39905.02 30000 35991.79 30000 31051.77 >> poll 30000 39905.49 30000 35980.35 30000 30995.64 >> usleep 30000 39903.78 30000 35979.48 30000 30995.23 >> nanosleep 30000 39904.55 30000 35981.61 30000 30995.87 >> kqueue 30000 30002.73 30000 32019.54 30000 30004.83 >> kqueueto 30000 39903.59 30000 35979.64 30000 30996.05 >> syscall 30000 4.44 30000 4.04 30000 4.31 >> select 300000 310001.23 300000 303995.86 300000 300994.30 >> poll 300000 309902.73 300000 303981.58 300000 300996.17 >> usleep 300000 309903.64 300000 303980.17 300000 300997.42 >> nanosleep 300000 309903.32 300000 303980.36 300000 300993.64 >> kqueue 300000 300002.77 300000 300019.46 300000 300006.90 >> kqueueto 300000 309903.31 300000 303978.10 300000 300996.84 >> syscall 300000 4.01 300000 4.04 300000 4.29 -- Alexander MotinReceived on Mon Dec 31 2012 - 09:17:40 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:33 UTC