[Lustre-discuss] Lustre buffer cache causes large system overhead.
surya1 at llnl.gov
Fri Aug 23 11:37:37 PDT 2013
How much RAM does the application use? Lustre is particularly slow at
evicting memory from its caches, so my guess is that's what you're
falling victim of..
1) Lustre has a large portion of RAM allocated for the page cache
2) Application starts and begins to allocate a large portion of RAM
3) Linux kernel starts to reclaim from page cache (i.e. Lustre).
This is a sort spot for Lustre, so it's causes application
allocations to "stall", waiting for Lustre to reclaim.
4) Lustre finally finishes reclaiming from its page cache
5) Application succeeds allocation and proceeds
Of course, this is all speculation as I don't have much data to go on.
How long does the drop_caches command take to complete?
I have a feeling the drop_caches command just preloads steps 3 and 4 in
the above sequence.
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 03:51:32PM +0200, Roy Dragseth wrote:
> We have just discovered that a large buffer cache generated from traversing a
> lustre file system will cause a significant system overhead for applications
> with high memory demands. We have seen a 50% slowdown or worse for
> applications. Even High Performance Linpack, that have no file IO whatsoever
> is affected. The only remedy seems to be to empty the buffer cache from memory
> by running "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches"
> Any hints on how to improve the situation is greatly appreciated.
> System setup:
> Client: Dual socket Sandy Bridge, with 32GB ram and infiniband connection to
> lustre server. CentOS 6.4, with kernel 2.6.32-358.11.1.el6.x86_64 and lustre
> v2.1.6 rpms downloaded from whamcloud download site.
> Lustre: 1 MDS and 4 OSS running Lustre 2.1.3 (also from whamcloud site). Each
> OSS has 12 OST, total 1.1 PB storage.
> How to reproduce:
> Traverse the lustre file system until the buffer cache is large enough. In our
> case we run
> find . -print0 -type f | xargs -0 cat > /dev/null
> on the client until the buffer cache reaches ~15-20GB. (The lustre file system
> has lots of small files so this takes up to an hour.)
> Kill the find process and start a single node parallel application, we use HPL
> (high performance linpack). We run on all 16 cores on the system with 1GB ram
> per core (a normal run should complete in appr. 150 seconds.) The system
> monitoring shows a 10-20% system cpu overhead and the HPL run takes more than
> 200 secs. After running "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" the system
> performance goes back to normal with a run time at 150 secs.
> I've created an infographic from our ganglia graphs for the above scenario.
> Attached is an excerpt from perf top indicating that the kernel routine taking
> the most time is _spin_lock_irqsave if that means anything to anyone.
> Things tested:
> It does not seem to matter if we mount lustre over infiniband or ethernet.
> Filling the buffer cache with files from an NFS filesystem does not degrade
> Filling the buffer cache with one large file does not give degraded performance.
> (tested with iozone)
> Again, any hints on how to proceed is greatly appreciated.
> Best regards,
> The Computer Center, University of Tromsø, N-9037 TROMSØ Norway.
> phone:+47 77 64 41 07, fax:+47 77 64 41 00
> Roy Dragseth, Team Leader, High Performance Computing
> Direct call: +47 77 64 62 56. email: roy.dragseth at uit.no
> Samples: 6M of event 'cycles', Event count (approx.): 634546877255
> 62.19% libmkl_avx.so [.] mkl_blas_avx_dgemm_kernel_0
> 13.30% mca_btl_sm.so [.] mca_btl_sm_component_progress
> 8.80% libmpi.so.1.0.3 [.] opal_progress
> 5.29% [kernel] [k] _spin_lock_irqsave
> 1.41% libmkl_avx.so [.] mkl_blas_avx_dgemm_copyan
> 1.17% mca_pml_ob1.so [.] mca_pml_ob1_progress
> 0.88% libmkl_avx.so [.] mkl_blas_avx_dtrsm_ker_ruu_a4_b8
> 0.41% [kernel] [k] compaction_alloc
> 0.38% [kernel] [k] _spin_lock_irq
> 0.36% mca_pml_ob1.so [.] opal_progress at plt
> 0.33% xhpl [.] HPL_dlaswp06T
> 0.28% libmkl_avx.so [.] mkl_blas_avx_dgemm_copybt
> 0.24% mca_pml_ob1.so [.] mca_pml_ob1_send
> 0.18% [kernel] [k] _spin_lock
> 0.17% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_commit_charge
> 0.16% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_lru_del_list
> 0.16% [kernel] [k] putback_lru_page
> 0.16% [kernel] [k] __mem_cgroup_uncharge_common
> 0.15% xhpl [.] HPL_dlatcpy
> 0.15% xhpl [.] HPL_dlaswp01T
> 0.15% [kernel] [k] clear_page_c
> 0.15% xhpl [.] HPL_dlaswp10N
> 0.13% [kernel] [k] list_del
> 0.13% [kernel] [k] free_hot_cold_page
> 0.13% [kernel] [k] free_pcppages_bulk
> 0.13% [kernel] [k] release_pages
> 0.13% mca_pml_ob1.so [.] mca_pml_ob1_recv
> 0.12% [kernel] [k] ____pagevec_lru_add
> 0.12% [kernel] [k] copy_user_generic_string
> 0.12% [kernel] [k] compact_zone
> 0.10% xhpl [.] __intel_ssse3_rep_memcpy
> 0.10% [kernel] [k] __list_add
> 0.10% [kernel] [k] lookup_page_cgroup
> 0.09% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_end_migration
> 0.08% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_prepare_migration
> 0.08% [kernel] [k] get_pageblock_flags_group
> 0.08% [kernel] [k] page_waitqueue
> 0.07% [kernel] [k] migrate_pages
> 0.07% [kernel] [k] __wake_up_bit
> 0.07% [kernel] [k] get_page
> 0.07% [kernel] [k] unlock_page
> 0.07% [kernel] [k] mem_cgroup_lru_add_list
> 0.06% [kernel] [k] page_fault
> 0.06% [kernel] [k] __alloc_pages_nodemask
> 0.06% [kernel] [k] put_page
> 0.06% [kernel] [k] compact_checklock_irqsave
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
More information about the lustre-discuss