linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/n] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

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: <20170619133831.GB3894@leverpostej>
Date:   Mon, 19 Jun 2017 14:38:31 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:     Alexey Budankov <alexey.budankov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kan Liang <kan.liang@...el.com>,
        Dmitri Prokhorov <Dmitry.Prohorov@...el.com>,
        Valery Cherepennikov <valery.cherepennikov@...el.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@...gle.com>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/n] perf/core: addressing 4x slowdown during
 per-process profiling of STREAM benchmark on Intel Xeon Phi

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 05:22:29PM +0300, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > On 16.06.2017 17:08, Alexey Budankov wrote:
> > >On 16.06.2017 12:09, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >>There's a --per-thread option to ask perf record to not duplicate the
> > >>event per-cpu.
> > >>
> > >>If you use that, what amount of slowdown do you see?
> > 
> > After applying all three patches:
> > 
> > - system-wide collection:
> > 
> > [ perf record: Woken up 1 times to write data ]
> > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 303.795 MB perf.data (~13272985 samples) ]
> > 2162.08user 176.24system 0:12.97elapsed 18021%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> > 1187208maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+622624outputs (0major+1360285minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> > 
> > - per-process collection:
> > 
> > [ perf record: Woken up 5 times to write data ]
> > [ perf record: Captured and wrote 1.079 MB perf.data (~47134 samples) ]
> > 2102.39user 153.88system 0:12.78elapsed 17645%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
> > 1187156maxresident)k
> > 0inputs+2272outputs (0major+1181660minor)pagefaults 0swaps
> > 
> > Elapsed times look similar. Data file sizes differ significantly.
> 
> Interesting. I wonder if that's because we're losing samples due to
> hammering the rb, or if that's a side-effect of this patch.
> 
> Does perf report describe any lost chunks?
> 
> For comparison, can you give --per-thread a go prior to these patches
> being applied?

FWIW, I had a go with (an old) perf record on an arm64 system using
--per-thread, and I see that no samples are recorded, which seems like a
bug.

With --per-thread, the slwodown was ~20%, whereas with the defaults it
was > 400%.

Thanks,
Mark.