linux-kernel - [lkp-robot] [x86/mm] 9e52fc2b50: will-it-scale.per_thread

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:59:14 +0800
From:   kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
        Jork Loeser <Jork.Loeser@...rosoft.com>,
        KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: [lkp-robot] [x86/mm]  9e52fc2b50:  will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -16%
 regression


Greeting,

FYI, we noticed a -16% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:


commit: 9e52fc2b50de3a1c08b44f94c610fbe998c0031a ("x86/mm: Enable RCU based page table freeing (CONFIG_HAVE_RCU_TABLE_FREE=y)")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master

in testcase: will-it-scale
on test machine: 32 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz with 64G memory
with following parameters:

	test: malloc1
	cpufreq_governor: performance

test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale



Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->


To reproduce:

        git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
        cd lkp-tests
        bin/lkp install job.yaml  # job file is attached in this email
        bin/lkp run     job.yaml

testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/malloc1-performance/lkp-sb03

39e48d9b128abbd2  9e52fc2b50de3a1c08b44f94c6  
----------------  --------------------------  
         %stddev      change         %stddev
             \          |                \  
     52686 ±  4%       -16%      44404        will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
      2351             216%       7432 ±  9%  will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches
       221               9%        241        will-it-scale.time.system_time
        74               9%         81        will-it-scale.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
    129046                      126398        will-it-scale.per_process_ops
  11216681 ±  3%       -11%   10001205        will-it-scale.time.minor_page_faults
   2936727 ±  4%       -15%    2498747        interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
     41949                       40801        vmstat.system.in
     14.86                       15.03        boot-time.dhcp
     15.23                       15.41        boot-time.kernel_boot
 3.885e+08 ±  3%        33%  5.185e+08        perf-stat.node-load-misses
     10335              25%      12942        perf-stat.cpu-migrations
 2.119e+08              24%  2.636e+08        perf-stat.iTLB-loads
 1.616e+09              17%  1.893e+09        perf-stat.cache-misses
 8.361e+08              16%  9.736e+08        perf-stat.node-stores
 8.381e+08              16%  9.725e+08        perf-stat.node-loads
      6.28              15%       7.26        perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
     31.67              10%      34.77        perf-stat.node-load-miss-rate%
 4.049e+08               4%  4.208e+08        perf-stat.node-store-misses
      0.20               3%       0.21        perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
      0.52                        0.51        perf-stat.ipc
 1.859e+09                   1.824e+09        perf-stat.iTLB-load-misses
 9.837e+11                   9.639e+11        perf-stat.branch-instructions
 6.615e+11                    6.46e+11        perf-stat.dTLB-stores
 4.787e+12                   4.674e+12        perf-stat.instructions
  2.08e+08                   2.028e+08        perf-stat.page-faults
  2.08e+08                   2.028e+08        perf-stat.minor-faults
     89.77                       87.37        perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
     32.63              -7%      30.19        perf-stat.node-store-miss-rate%


[*] bisect-good sample
[O] bisect-bad  sample


Disclaimer:
Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
design or configuration may affect actual performance.


Thanks,
Xiaolong

View attachment "config-4.13.0-rc6-00172-g9e52fc2" of type "text/plain" (161166 bytes)

View attachment "job-script" of type "text/plain" (7170 bytes)

View attachment "job.yaml" of type "text/plain" (4844 bytes)

View attachment "reproduce" of type "text/plain" (315 bytes)