Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:04:56 -0400
From:      alex@schnarff.com
To:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Too Much Context Switching? - FIXED
Message-ID:  <20080630200456.uf01ro1obms40cok@mail.schnarff.com>
In-Reply-To: <48696EB0.6000906@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <20080630165205.GA3033@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <48691D7C.2090804@FreeBSD.org> <20080630181755.GA3327@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <48692DE7.3020502@FreeBSD.org> <20080630192154.nj1sns26kg44w4w8@mail.schnarff.com> <48696EB0.6000906@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>:

> alex@schnarff.com wrote:
>> Quoting Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>:
>>
>>> Michel Talon wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:53:00PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>>>> Yep, it could be that -- what confuses me though is that it is 
>>>>> claimed that performance suddenly regressed.  If so then this 
>>>>> cannot be the underlying cause.
>>>>
>>>> It may be that the load has augmented to the point that contention
>>>> imposes a rapid regression on throughput.
>>>
>>> Yes, it could be that.  I don't know off-hand whether multiple threads
>>> are counted separately by vmstat (at a guess I'd say no), but ps/top/etc
>>> should show how many are active in the python process.
>>
>> Just ran ktrace, and a bit of Googling seems to confirm my initial 
>> suspicion that the results I'm seeing are abnormal. The first 
>> several screenfulls of output look like this:
>>
>>  52929 python2.4 1214867016.469416 CALL  kse_wakeup(0x811740c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000060 RET   kse_wakeup 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000008 RET   kse_release 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000040 CALL  kse_release(0x811df4c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000515 CALL  kse_wakeup(0x811740c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000012 RET   kse_wakeup 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000004 RET   kse_release 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000012 CALL  kse_release(0x811df4c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000365 CALL  kse_wakeup(0x811740c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000012 RET   kse_wakeup 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000003 RET   kse_release 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000010 CALL  kse_release(0x811df4c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000413 CALL  kse_wakeup(0x811740c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000011 RET   kse_wakeup 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000004 RET   kse_release 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000009 CALL  kse_release(0x811df4c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000393 CALL  kse_wakeup(0x811740c)
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000012 RET   kse_wakeup 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000004 RET   kse_release 0
>>  52929 python2.4 0.000009 CALL  kse_release(0x811df4c)
>>
>> I may be mistaken, but it seems like that's a lot of unnecessary 
>> activity managing the threads; the confirmation I found came from 
>> http://arkiv.freebsd.se/?ml=freebsd-threads&a=2007-02&t=3178634.
>>
>> Am I correct that this is abnormal behavior? If so, any idea what I 
>> may need to do to fix the issue?
>
> Looks exactly like the python thread problem Michel described.
>
> You will get some improvement by switching to libthr and/or updating to
> 7.0 as I discussed, but ultimately you're hitting limits of python, not
> FreeBSD.

WOW...it's *amazing* how much of a difference a single sysctl can make.

I went ahead and set kern.threads.virtual_cpu=1, as suggested in the 
thread above, and the difference is ridiculous -- Zope is now faster 
than I've ever seen. More importantly, my ktracing shows that all of 
the kse_* garabage is now gone.

I'll probably be upgrading to 7.0 in the next month or so, given that 
this is obviously a thread issue and that that release has much 
improved thread code. However, for the time being, the pressing issue 
is fixed, and for anyone in my position stuck on 6.2...this is night & 
day.

Alex



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080630200456.uf01ro1obms40cok>