linux-kernel - Re: Kernel 4.7rc3 - Performance drop 30-40% for SPECjbb2005 and SPECjvm2008 benchmarks against 4.6 kernel

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]

Message-ID: <CAE4VaGAhJ9f=KA9PXRM+Mh_vvQhseV--bLg4EXZ5BO30BHQKpA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jun 2016 15:08:32 +0200
From:	Jirka Hladky <jhladky@...hat.com>
To:	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Kamil Kolakowski <kkolakow@...hat.com>,
	Morten Rasmussen <morten.rasmussen@....com>,
	Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@...el.com>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
	Benjamin Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>,
	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
	Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Kernel 4.7rc3 - Performance drop 30-40% for SPECjbb2005 and
 SPECjvm2008 benchmarks against 4.6 kernel

Hi Peter,

the proposed patch has fixed the performance issue. I have applied the
patch to v4.7-rc4

Jirka

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 24 June 2016 at 14:02, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 09:44:41AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote:
>>> Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> thanks a lot for looking into it!
>>>
>>> I have tried to disable autogroups
>>>
>>> sysctl -w kernel.sched_autogroup_enabled=0
>>>
>>> and I can confirm that performance is then back at level as in 4.6 kernel.
>>
>> So unless the heat has made me do really silly things, the below seems
>> to cure things. Could you please verify?
>>
>>
>> ---
>>  kernel/sched/fair.c | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/sched/fair.c b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> index 22d64b3f5876..d4f6fb2f3057 100644
>> --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
>> @@ -2484,7 +2484,7 @@ static inline long calc_tg_weight(struct task_group *tg, struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq)
>>          */
>>         tg_weight = atomic_long_read(&tg->load_avg);
>>         tg_weight -= cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib;
>> -       tg_weight += cfs_rq->load.weight;
>> +       tg_weight += cfs_rq->avg.load_avg;
>
> IIUC, you are reverting
> commit  fde7d22e01aa (sched/fair: Fix overly small weight for
> interactive group entities)
>
> I have one question regarding the use of cfs_rq->avg.load_avg
> cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib is the sampling of cfs_rq->avg.load_avg so
> I'm curious to understand why you use cfs_rq->avg.load_avg instead of
> keeping cfs_rq->tg_load_avg_contrib. Do you think that the sampling is
> not accurate enough to prevent any significant difference between both
> when we use tg->load_avg ?
>
>
>>
>>         return tg_weight;
>>  }
>> @@ -2494,7 +2494,7 @@ static long calc_cfs_shares(struct cfs_rq *cfs_rq, struct task_group *tg)
>>         long tg_weight, load, shares;
>>
>>         tg_weight = calc_tg_weight(tg, cfs_rq);
>> -       load = cfs_rq->load.weight;
>> +       load = cfs_rq->avg.load_avg;
>>
>>         shares = (tg->shares * load);
>>         if (tg_weight)