| 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: <CALvZod6nDEEBHfJGB53EQxpESxTVb7hxa9HU7fA1CA+qMMyJaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 13:24:00 -0800
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, lkp@...org,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [mm, mlock, vmscan] 9c4e6b1a70:
stress-ng.hdd.ops_per_sec -7.9% regression
On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com> wrote:
> On 02/26, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
>>Hi, Shakeel
>>
>>On 02/25, Shakeel Butt wrote:
>>>On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 6:44 AM, kernel test robot
>>><xiaolong.ye@...el.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greeting,
>>>>
>>>> FYI, we noticed a -7.9% regression of stress-ng.hdd.ops_per_sec due to commit:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> commit: 9c4e6b1a7027f102990c0395296015a812525f4d ("mm, mlock, vmscan: no more skipping pagevecs")
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>>>
>>>> in testcase: stress-ng
>>>> on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 128G memory
>>>> with following parameters:
>>>>
>>>
>>>Hi Xiaolong,
>>>
>>>Is there a way I can get the output of "perf record -a -g" running in
>>>parallel to the actual test on this machine. As I have mentioned
>>>before I am not able to reproduce this issue. However I am trying to
>>>repro on a VM with 4 vcpus and 4 GiB memory and I don't see any
>>>difference. I am suspecting that it may repro on a larger machine but
>>>I don't have access to one.
>>>
>>
>>perf.data attached. It was generated via `perf record -q -ag --realtime=1 -m 256`
>
> Attached perf-profile.gz is the result of `perf report` result.
>
Hi Xiaolong,
Can you please give me the actual full stress-ng command used in this
test? I have run following command on linux tree (with top commit
being 4c3579f6cadd5e) with and without my patch on a 72 thread
machine.
$ stress-ng --sequential 0 --class io -t 10s --times --verify --metrics-brief
Result without the patch:
stress-ng: info: [16828] successful run completed in 97.90s (1 min, 37.90 secs)
stress-ng: info: [16828] stressor bogo ops real time usr time
sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [16828] (secs) (secs)
(secs) (real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [16828] aio 44928 10.00 0.00
0.00 4492.79 0.00
stress-ng: info: [16828] aiol 155 15.52 0.00
0.00 9.98 0.00
stress-ng: info: [16828] hdd 71136 14.25 0.00
2.78 4991.33 25588.49
stress-ng: info: [16828] rawdev 16681 10.07 0.00
0.00 1656.10 0.00
stress-ng: info: [16828] readahead 383446363 10.00 340.42
327.13 38330308.93 574408.45
stress-ng: info: [16828] revio 40008242 10.00 12.27
704.03 4000263.49 55854.03
stress-ng: info: [16828] seek 1807314 10.58 1.02
22.24 170899.04 77700.52
stress-ng: info: [16828] sync-file 1730 10.05 0.00
0.67 172.20 2582.09
stress-ng: info: [16828] for a 97.90s run time:
stress-ng: info: [16828] 7048.63s available CPU time
stress-ng: info: [16828] 355.18s user time ( 5.04%)
stress-ng: info: [16828] 1059.33s system time ( 15.03%)
stress-ng: info: [16828] 1414.51s total time ( 20.07%)
stress-ng: info: [16828] load average: 53.40 28.06 14.48
Result with the patch:
stress-ng: info: [31637] successful run completed in 94.40s (1 min, 34.40 secs)
stress-ng: info: [31637] stressor bogo ops real time usr time
sys time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [31637] (secs) (secs)
(secs) (real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [31637] aio 44928 10.00 0.00
0.00 4492.79 0.00
stress-ng: info: [31637] aiol 138 14.26 0.00
0.00 9.68 0.00
stress-ng: info: [31637] hdd 75305 13.77 0.00
2.82 5467.52 26703.90
stress-ng: info: [31637] rawdev 13309 10.05 0.00
1.29 1323.72 10317.05
stress-ng: info: [31637] readahead 373902555 10.00 323.52
316.95 37382265.90 583794.02
stress-ng: info: [31637] revio 45142381 10.00 13.73
702.51 4513648.49 63026.89
stress-ng: info: [31637] seek 3046010 10.32 1.83
23.92 295270.48 118291.65
stress-ng: info: [31637] sync-file 1858 10.03 0.00
0.65 185.17 2858.46
stress-ng: info: [31637] for a 94.40s run time:
stress-ng: info: [31637] 6796.83s available CPU time
stress-ng: info: [31637] 340.50s user time ( 5.01%)
stress-ng: info: [31637] 1050.70s system time ( 15.46%)
stress-ng: info: [31637] 1391.20s total time ( 20.47%)
stress-ng: info: [31637] load average: 51.64 26.97 14.28
What should I be looking at in the results? Also please note that I
have to compile stress-ng statically to run on these machines and skip
the lkp framework.
thanks,
Shakeel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists