linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput

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: <371c1f25-bc00-c36a-a7f5-fbe05cd58abc@intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:52 +0800
From:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:	Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc:	kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, lkp@...org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2%
 regression

On 08/17/2016 01:04 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/16/2016 05:56 PM, Xin Long wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm testing on Linus' master, can we all use that please?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [git] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>>>
>>>> [mechine]
>>>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
>>>> mem 62G (66000220K)
>>>>
>>>> [system]
>>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release
>>>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.3 Beta (Maipo)
>>>>
>>>> [commit 3684b03]
>>>> [root@...dl380pg8-11 lxin]# uname -r
>>>> 4.8.0-rc2.3684b03
>>>> [root@...dl380pg8-11 lxin]# cat test.sh
>>>> killall -0 netserver || netserver -4 &
>>>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
>>>
>>> I just realized the test we are doing is not exactly the same.
>>> As the original report says:
>>>         ip: ipv4
>>>         runtime: 300s
>>>         nr_threads: 200%
>>>         cluster: cs-localhost
>>>         send_size: 10K
>>>         test: SCTP_STREAM_MANY
>>>         cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>
>>> Note the nr_threads: 200%, which means to start 2 times of CPU number
>>> processes of netperf.
>>>
>>> In our IVB i3(2 cores, 2 threads per core) case, 8 netperf processes
>>> are started concurrently:
>> OK, understand.
>>
>>>
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>>
>>> The throughput is the average of those runs.
>>>
>>> And I think we should be doing test on:
>>> commit a6c2f79287 ("sctp: implement prsctp TTL policy") (the bisected one)
>>> and
>>> commit 826d253d57 ("sctp: add SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS on sctp sockopt") (its immediate parent)
>>> instead of Linus' master HEAD to avoid other factors.
>>>
>> OK, I will do tests as your suggestion now,  but need to rebuild again :D
>>
>> can you disable pr_enable with "sysctl -w net.sctp.prsctp_enable=0",
>> then try again?
> 
> For commit a6c2f79287 ("sctp: implement prsctp TTL policy"), no matter
> the value of net.sctp.prsctp_enable, the throughput is almost the same:

The perf-profile data for the two commits are attached(for the case of
prsctp_enable=1, the perf-profile data doesn't get collected for the 0
case for some reason, I'm checking the problem now).

The CPU gets much more idle time in the bisected commit a6c2f79287:

    68.89%     0.70%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
    49.32%     0.12%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sys_sendmsg
    49.17%     0.12%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] __sys_sendmsg
    48.58%     0.22%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] ___sys_sendmsg
    46.69%     0.06%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sock_sendmsg
    46.31%     0.16%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] inet_sendmsg
    45.90%     0.98%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_sendmsg
    29.66%     0.45%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_do_sm
    29.54%     0.23%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] cpu_startup_entry
    28.81%     0.68%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_cmd_interpreter.isra.24
    26.20%     0.00%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] start_secondary
    23.04%     0.09%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_inq_push
    23.03%     0.08%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] call_cpuidle
    22.94%     0.00%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] cpuidle_enter
    22.60%     0.18%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] cpuidle_enter_state
    21.99%    21.99%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] intel_idle
... ...

While its immediate parent commit 826d253d57 is mostly busy working:

    98.53%     0.83%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
    78.13%     0.12%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sys_sendmsg
    78.03%     0.16%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] __sys_sendmsg
    77.08%     0.28%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] ___sys_sendmsg
    74.44%     0.08%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sock_sendmsg
    73.82%     0.13%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] inet_sendmsg
    73.34%     1.44%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_sendmsg
    47.52%     0.75%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_do_sm
    46.19%     0.90%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_cmd_interpreter.isra.24
    37.17%     1.43%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_outq_flush
    36.93%     0.08%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_outq_uncork
    34.24%     0.15%  [kernel.kallsyms]   [k] sctp_inq_push
... ...
No idle related function above 1%.

Will the bisected commit make the idle possible?

Thanks,
Aaron

Download attachment "perf-profile-a6c2f79287.gz" of type "application/gzip" (10561 bytes)

Download attachment "perf-profile-826d253d57.gz" of type "application/gzip" (10231 bytes)