linux-kernel - Re: tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1

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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 29 Dec 2009 10:09:42 +0800
From:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>
To:	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Cc:	"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: tbench regression with 2.6.33-rc1

On Sun, 2009-12-27 at 16:32 +0800, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-25 at 19:11 +0800, Lin Ming wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Test machine: 16 cpus (4P/2Core/HT), 8G mem
> > tbench test command:
> > tbench_srv &
> > tbench 32
> > 
> > Compared with 2.6.32, tbench has ~4% regression in 2.6.33-rc1.
> > 
> > >>From vmstat data, the context switch number also drop ~4%.
> > perf top data does not show much differences.
> > 
> > But lockstat data shows huge difference in rq->lock, as below.
> > See the attachment for the full lockstat data.
> > 
> > Any clue of this regression?
> 
> Nope, but I see regression I haven't been able to identify as well.

Hi, Mike

More info here,
I only saw regression on Tulsa machine.
No regression on Nehalem core 2 machine.

And also no regression if I run tbench with RT scheduler on tulsa
machine, as below command,

schedtool -R -p 20 -e tbench_srv &
schedtool -R -p 20 -e tbench 32

So seems this regression is CFS scheduler related.
I also did a lot of bisect, but the result was not stable.
Looks like this regression was not caused by a single commit.

Lin Ming

> 
> Tbench state of the union according to my box below.
> 
> With a max performance config, 32.2 is down ~4% vs 31.9, most of which
> is doing affinity checks on every wakeup.  That has it's benefits too,
> but definitely ain't free, or even particularly cheap for fast movers.
> Would be nice to find a way to keep the ramp-up improvements without
> this much cost.
> 
> Perf also isn't free, and in 33, we lost the ability to config it out,
> but even doing so via axe, there's an unidentified regression.
> 
> As usual, bisection of tbench variance was a wasted effort.
> 
> 2.6.31.9  = -CONFIG_PERF_COUNTERS
> 2.6.31.9p = +CONFIG_PERF_COUNTERS
> 2.6.32.2  = -CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> 2.6.32.2p = +CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS
> git = v2.6.33-rc2
> tip = v2.6.33-rc1-306-gae7a88c
> 
> tbench 8
> 2.6.31.9             1190 MB/sec
> 2.6.31.9p            1172 MB/sec  .984
> 2.6.32.2             1146 MB/sec  .977 vs 31.9 .963
> 2.6.32.2p            1129 MB/sec  .985 vs 31.9 .948
> 2.6.33.git           1117 MB/sec  .989 vs 31.9 .938
> 2.6.33.tip           1121 MB/sec 1.003 vs 31.9 .942
> 
> 2.6.32.2             1146 MB/sec 1.000
> 2.6.32.2x            1181 MB/sec 1.030 vs 31.9 .992
> 
> 2.6.33.git           1117 MB/sec 1.000
> 2.6.33.gitx          1145 MB/sec 1.025 vs 32.2x .969 vs 31.9 .962  (perf/hwbp off via axe)
> 
> 2.6.32.2x diff
> diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
> index d079a9f..b71cb91 100644
> --- a/kernel/sched.c
> +++ b/kernel/sched.c
> @@ -2363,6 +2363,9 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
>  	orig_cpu = cpu;
>  
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	if (cpu == this_cpu)
> +		goto out_stats;
> +
>  	if (unlikely(task_running(rq, p)))
>  		goto out_activate;
>  
> @@ -2389,6 +2392,7 @@ static int try_to_wake_up(struct task_struct *p, unsigned int state,
>  	WARN_ON(p->state != TASK_WAKING);
>  	cpu = task_cpu(p);
>  
> +out_stats:
>  #ifdef CONFIG_SCHEDSTATS
>  	schedstat_inc(rq, ttwu_count);
>  	if (cpu == this_cpu)
> 
> 

--
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/