| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAJvTdKmR90tsOWgo-2t9neNFTE15SOYtPN7zgjGKDvafWfk0TA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 15:07:00 -0500 From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org> To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, athorlton@....com, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, chegu_vinod@...com, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...ux.intel.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Idle power fix regresses ebizzy performance (was 3.12-stable backport of NUMA balancing patches) Hi Mel, Thanks for the bisect. What is the cpuid of the machine that sees the regression? thanks, -Len On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de> wrote: > Adding LKML to the list as this -stable snifftest has identified an > upstream regression. > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:43:40AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 08:30:12PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: >> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 06:17:15AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 02:00:35PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: >> > > > > A number of NUMA balancing patches were tagged for -stable but I got a >> > > > > number of rejected mails from either Greg or his robot minion. The list >> > > > > of relevant patches is >> > > > > >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: serialise parallel get_user_page against THP" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: call MMU notifiers on THP migration" >> > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: clear pmd_numa before invalidating" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PMD during PTE update scan" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: do not clear PTE for pte_numa update" >> > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: ensure anon_vma is locked to prevent parallel THP splits" >> > > > > MERGED: Patch "mm: numa: avoid unnecessary work on the failure path" >> > > > > MERGED: Patch "sched: numa: skip inaccessible VMAs" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: clear numa hinting information on mprotect" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: avoid unnecessary disruption of NUMA hinting during" >> > > > > Patch "mm: fix TLB flush race between migration, and change_protection_range" >> > > > > Patch "mm: numa: guarantee that tlb_flush_pending updates are visible before page table updates" >> > > > > FAILED: patch "[PATCH] mm: numa: defer TLB flush for THP migration as long as" >> > > > > >> > > > > Fixing the rejects one at a time may cause other conflicts due to ordering >> > > > > issues. Instead, this patch series against 3.12.6 is the full list of >> > > > > backported patches in the expected order. Greg, unfortunately this means >> > > > > you may have to drop some patches already in your stable tree and reapply >> > > > > but on the plus side they should be then in the correct order for bisection >> > > > > purposes and you'll know I've tested this combination of patches. >> > > > >> > > > Many thanks for these, I'll go queue them up in a bit and drop the >> > > > others to ensure I got all of this correct. >> > > >> > > Ok, I've now queued all of these up, in this order, so we should be >> > > good. >> > > >> > > I'll do a -rc2 in a bit as it needs some testing. >> > > >> > >> > Thanks a million. I should be cc'd on some of those so I'll pick up the >> > final result and run it through the same tests just to be sure. >> > >> >> Ok, tests completed and look more or less as expected. This is not to >> say the performance results are *good* as such. Workloads that normally >> demonstrate automatic numa balancing suffered because of other patches that >> were merged (primarily fair zone allocation policy) that had interesting >> side-effects. However, it now does not crash under heavy stress and I >> prefer working a little slowly than crashing fast. NAS at least looks >> better. >> >> Other workloads like kernel builds, page fault microbench looked good as >> expected from the fair zone allocation policy fixes. >> >> Big downside is that ebizzy performance is *destroyed* in that RC2 patch >> somewhere >> >> ebizzy >> 3.12.6 3.12.6 3.12.7-rc2 >> vanilla backport-v1r2 stablerc2 >> Mean 1 3278.67 ( 0.00%) 3180.67 ( -2.99%) 3212.00 ( -2.03%) >> Mean 2 2322.67 ( 0.00%) 2294.67 ( -1.21%) 1839.00 (-20.82%) >> Mean 3 2257.00 ( 0.00%) 2218.67 ( -1.70%) 1664.00 (-26.27%) >> Mean 4 2268.00 ( 0.00%) 2224.67 ( -1.91%) 1629.67 (-28.15%) >> Mean 5 2247.67 ( 0.00%) 2255.67 ( 0.36%) 1582.33 (-29.60%) >> Mean 6 2263.33 ( 0.00%) 2251.33 ( -0.53%) 1547.67 (-31.62%) >> Mean 7 2273.67 ( 0.00%) 2222.67 ( -2.24%) 1545.67 (-32.02%) >> Mean 8 2254.67 ( 0.00%) 2232.33 ( -0.99%) 1535.33 (-31.90%) >> Mean 12 2237.67 ( 0.00%) 2266.33 ( 1.28%) 1543.33 (-31.03%) >> Mean 16 2201.33 ( 0.00%) 2252.67 ( 2.33%) 1540.33 (-30.03%) >> Mean 20 2205.67 ( 0.00%) 2229.33 ( 1.07%) 1537.33 (-30.30%) >> Mean 24 2162.33 ( 0.00%) 2168.67 ( 0.29%) 1535.33 (-29.00%) >> Mean 28 2139.33 ( 0.00%) 2107.67 ( -1.48%) 1535.00 (-28.25%) >> Mean 32 2084.67 ( 0.00%) 2089.00 ( 0.21%) 1537.33 (-26.26%) >> Mean 36 2002.00 ( 0.00%) 2020.00 ( 0.90%) 1530.33 (-23.56%) >> Mean 40 1972.67 ( 0.00%) 1978.67 ( 0.30%) 1530.33 (-22.42%) >> Mean 44 1951.00 ( 0.00%) 1953.67 ( 0.14%) 1531.00 (-21.53%) >> Mean 48 1931.67 ( 0.00%) 1930.67 ( -0.05%) 1526.67 (-20.97%) >> >> Figures are records/sec, more is better for increasing numbers of threads >> up to 48 which is the number of logical CPUs in the machine. Three kernels >> tested >> >> 3.12.6 is self-explanatory >> backport-v1r2 is the backported series I sent you >> stablerc2 is the rc2 patch I pulled from kernel.org >> >> I'm not that familiar with the stable workflow but stable-queue.git looked >> like it had the correct quilt tree so bisection is in progress. If I had >> to bet money on it, I'd bet it's going to be scheduler or power management >> related mostly because problems in both of those areas have tended to >> screw ebizzy recently. >> > > I was not far off. Bisection identified the following commit > > 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351 is the first bad commit > commit 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351 > Author: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com> > Date: Wed Dec 18 16:44:57 2013 -0500 > > x86 idle: Repair large-server 50-watt idle-power regression > > commit 40e2d7f9b5dae048789c64672bf3027fbb663ffa upstream. > > Linux 3.10 changed the timing of how thread_info->flags is touched: > > x86: Use generic idle loop > (7d1a941731fabf27e5fb6edbebb79fe856edb4e5) > > This caused Intel NHM-EX and WSM-EX servers to experience a large number > of immediate MONITOR/MWAIT break wakeups, which caused cpuidle to demote > from deep C-states to shallow C-states, which caused these platforms > to experience a significant increase in idle power. > > Note that this issue was already present before the commit above, > however, it wasn't seen often enough to be noticed in power measurements. > > Here we extend an errata workaround from the Core2 EX "Dunnington" > to extend to NHM-EX and WSM-EX, to prevent these immediate > returns from MWAIT, reducing idle power on these platforms. > > While only acpi_idle ran on Dunnington, intel_idle > may also run on these two newer systems. > As of today, there are no other models that are known > to need this tweak. > > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAJvTdK=%2BaNN66mYpCGgbHGCHhYQAKx-vB0kJSWjVpsNb_hOAtQ@mail.gmail.com > Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com> > Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/baff264285f6e585df757d58b17788feabc68918.1387403066.git.len.brown@intel.com > Signed-off-by: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...ux.intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> > > Len, HPA, the x86 idle regression fix fubars ebizzy as a consequence, I > don't know why. I know the workload is not that important (and I expected > ebizzy to be unaffected in this test) but it is probably indicative of > other performance regressions hiding in there. It was caught via -stable > testing by accident but I checked and upstream is also affected. This is > a snippet from the bisection log > > Wed 8 Jan 09:53:59 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.6 mean-4:2317 good > Wed 8 Jan 10:13:04 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.7-rc2 mean-4:1631 bad > Wed 8 Jan 10:27:45 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy a202b4808e500f4fd53b6cec150c8fe214c70183 mean-4:1620 bad > Wed 8 Jan 10:41:36 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c915b8fa860e189cb84898a30f135399baa827fa mean-4:2290 good > Wed 8 Jan 10:55:14 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c915b8fa860e189cb84898a30f135399baa827fa mean-4:2266 good > Wed 8 Jan 11:09:04 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy c62a6f8a28bf8897ba0903cf332d761c1132e48d mean-4:1624 bad > Wed 8 Jan 11:22:46 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 346679aad15c3608844f6b433b8d8ba56ad03802 mean-4:2280 good > Wed 8 Jan 11:36:32 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 36b9512dc19b535d72c1035048a95ec1c765d403 mean-4:1641 bad > Wed 8 Jan 11:50:22 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 1a82fc9ab8bb6b4a5ee5cd32d570d6ff0b77efb2 mean-4:1627 bad > Wed 8 Jan 12:04:15 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy 3d97ea0816589c818ac62fb401e61c3b6a59f351 mean-4:1619 bad > Wed 8 Jan 13:10:03 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.13-rc7 mean-4:1619 bad > Wed 8 Jan 13:39:19 GMT 2014 compass ebizzy v3.12.7-rc2-revert mean-4:2276 good > > mean-4 figures are records/sec as recorded by the bisection test. The > bisection points are based on the -stable quilt tree so the commit ids are > meaningless but you can see good/bad figures are relatively stable leading > me to conclude the bisection is valid. > > v3.12.6 was 2317 records/second and considered "good". The 3.12.7-rc2 > stable candidate and 3.13-rc7 are both "bad". Reverting the single patch > from v3.12.7-rc2 restores performance. > > Greg, this does not affect your -stable release as such because upstream is > also affected. If you release with the patch merged then the upstream fix > (whatever that is) will also need to be included in -stable later. If you > release without the patch then both upstream fixes will be later required > and some Intel machines will continue to consume excessive amounts of > power in the meantime. > > -- > Mel Gorman > SUSE Labs > -- > 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/ -- Len Brown, Intel Open Source Technology Center -- 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