| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:52:50 +0100
From: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: perf-stat changes after "Use hrtimers for event multiplexing"
Hi,
With the hrtitmer patch, you will get more regular multiplexing when
you have idle cores during your benchmark.
Without the patch, multiplexing was piggybacked on timer tick. The
timer tick does not occur when a core is idle
when using a tickless kernel. Thus, the quality of the results with
hrtimers should be improved.
On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 2:14 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 04, 2014 at 08:02:28PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 02:12:42PM +0800, fengguang.wu@...el.com wrote:
>> > Greetings,
>> >
>> > We noticed many perf-stat changes between commit 9e6302056f ("perf: Use
>> > hrtimers for event multiplexing") and its parent commit ab573844e.
>> > Are these expected changes?
>> >
>> > ab573844e3058ee 9e6302056f8029f438e853432
>> > --------------- -------------------------
>> > 152917 +842.9% 1441897 TOTAL interrupts.0:IO-APIC-edge.timer
>> > 545996 +478.0% 3155637 TOTAL interrupts.LOC
>> > 182281 +12.3% 204718 TOTAL softirqs.SCHED
>> > 1.986e+08 -96.4% 7105919 TOTAL perf-stat.node-store-misses
>> > 107241719 -99.7% 317525 TOTAL perf-stat.node-prefetch-misses
>> > 1.938e+08 -90.7% 17930426 TOTAL perf-stat.node-load-misses
>> > 2590 +247.8% 9009 TOTAL vmstat.system.in
>> > 4.549e+12 +158.3% 1.175e+13 TOTAL perf-stat.stalled-cycles-backend
>> > 6.807e+12 +149.1% 1.696e+13 TOTAL perf-stat.stalled-cycles-frontend
>> > 1.753e+08 -50.8% 86339289 TOTAL perf-stat.node-prefetches
>> > 8.326e+11 +45.0% 1.207e+12 TOTAL perf-stat.cpu-cycles
>> > 37932143 +32.2% 50146025 TOTAL perf-stat.iTLB-load-misses
>> > 4.738e+11 +30.1% 6.165e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.iTLB-loads
>> > 2.56e+11 +30.1% 3.33e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.L1-icache-loads
>> > 4.951e+11 +24.6% 6.169e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.instructions
>> > 7.85e+08 +7.5% 8.439e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-prefetch-misses
>> > 1.891e+12 +22.8% 2.322e+12 TOTAL perf-stat.ref-cycles
>> > 4.344e+08 -20.3% 3.462e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.node-loads
>> > 2.836e+11 +17.4% 3.328e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.branch-loads
>> > 9.506e+10 +24.5% 1.183e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.branch-load-misses
>> > 2.803e+11 +18.4% 3.319e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.branch-instructions
>> > 7.988e+10 +20.9% 9.658e+10 TOTAL perf-stat.bus-cycles
>> > 2.041e+09 +22.2% 2.495e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.branch-misses
>> > 229145 -17.3% 189601 TOTAL perf-stat.cpu-migrations
>> > 1.782e+11 +17.9% 2.1e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.dTLB-loads
>> > 4.702e+08 -14.8% 4.006e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-load-misses
>> > 1.418e+11 +17.4% 1.666e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.L1-dcache-loads
>> > 1.838e+09 +16.1% 2.133e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-stores
>> > 2.428e+09 +11.3% 2.702e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-loads
>> > 2.788e+11 +8.6% 3.029e+11 TOTAL perf-stat.dTLB-stores
>> > 8.66e+08 +10.8% 9.594e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-prefetches
>> > 1.117e+09 +10.5% 1.234e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.dTLB-store-misses
>> > 1.705e+09 +5.3% 1.796e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.L1-dcache-store-misses
>> > 5.671e+09 +6.1% 6.015e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.L1-dcache-load-misses
>> > 8.794e+10 +3.6% 9.109e+10 TOTAL perf-stat.L1-dcache-stores
>> > 3.46e+09 +4.6% 3.618e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.cache-references
>> > 8.696e+08 +1.8% 8.849e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.cache-misses
>> > 1613129 +2.6% 1655724 TOTAL perf-stat.context-switches
>> >
>> > All of the changes happen in one of our test box, which has a DX58SO
>> > baseboard and 4-core CPU. The boot dmesg and kconfig are attached.
>> > We can test more boxes if necessary.
>>
>> How do you run perf stat?
>
> perf stat -a $(-e hardware, cache, software events)
>
>> Curious that you notice this now, its a fairly old commit.
>
> Yeah, we are feeding old kernels to the 0day performance test system, too. :)
>
>> IIRC we did have a few wobbles with that, but I cannot remember much
>> detail.
>>
>> The biggest difference between before and after that patch is that we'd
>> rotate while the core is 'idle'. So if you do something like 'perf stat
>> -a' and have significant idle time it does indeed make a difference.
>
> It is 'perf stat -a'; the CPU is mostly idle because it's an IO workload.
>
> btw, we find another commit that changed some perf-stat output:
>
> 2f7f73a520 ("perf/x86: Fix shared register mutual exclusion enforcement")
>
> Comparing to its parent commit:
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 1.308e+08 ~26% -77.8% 29029594 ~12% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-xfs-10dd
> 1.308e+08 -77.8% 29029594 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-prefetch-misses
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 97086131 ~ 7% -71.0% 28127157 ~11% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-xfs-10dd
> 97086131 -71.0% 28127157 TOTAL perf-stat.node-prefetches
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 1.4e+08 ~ 3% -56.6% 60744486 ~ 9% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-xfs-10dd
> 1.4e+08 -56.6% 60744486 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-load-misses
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 6.967e+08 ~ 0% -49.6% 3.513e+08 ~ 6% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-xfs-10dd
> 6.967e+08 -49.6% 3.513e+08 TOTAL perf-stat.node-stores
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 1.933e+09 ~ 1% -43.0% 1.103e+09 ~ 2% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-xfs-10dd
> 1.933e+09 -43.0% 1.103e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-stores
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 7.013e+08 ~ 5% -55.5% 3.118e+08 ~ 4% fat/micro/dd-write/1HDD-deadline-btrfs-100dd
> 6.775e+09 ~ 1% -20.4% 5.391e+09 ~ 1% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
> 7.477e+09 -23.7% 5.703e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-store-misses
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 2.294e+09 ~ 1% -10.0% 2.065e+09 ~ 0% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
> 2.294e+09 -10.0% 2.065e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.LLC-prefetches
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 8.685e+09 ~ 0% -10.0% 7.814e+09 ~ 1% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
> 8.685e+09 -10.0% 7.814e+09 TOTAL perf-stat.cache-misses
>
> 069e0c3c4058147 2f7f73a52078b667d64df16ea
> --------------- -------------------------
> 1.591e+12 ~ 0% -8.7% 1.453e+12 ~ 1% lkp-ws02/micro/dd-write/11HDD-JBOD-cfq-ext4-1dd
> 1.591e+12 -8.7% 1.453e+12 TOTAL perf-stat.dTLB-loads
>
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists