| 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: <9860a0c2-1f24-a00f-fdea-89e55a07c571@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2019 10:22:18 -0500
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip 00/22] locking/rwsem: Rework rwsem-xadd & enable new
rwsem features
On 02/14/2019 08:23 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2019, Waiman Long wrote:
>> I am planning to run more performance test and post the data sometimes
>> next week. Davidlohr is also going to run some of his rwsem performance
>> test on this patchset.
>
> So I ran this series on a 40-core IB 2 socket with various worklods in
> mmtests. Below are some of the interesting ones; full numbers and curves
> at https://linux-scalability.org/rwsem-reader-spinner/
>
> All workloads are with increasing number of threads.
>
> -- pagefault timings: pft is an artificial pf benchmark (thus reader
> stress).
> metric is faults/cpu and faults/sec
> v5.0-rc6 v5.0-rc6
> dirty
> Hmean faults/cpu-1 624224.9815 ( 0.00%) 618847.5201 * -0.86%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-4 539550.3509 ( 0.00%) 547407.5738 * 1.46%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-7 401470.3461 ( 0.00%) 381157.9830 * -5.06%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-12 267617.0353 ( 0.00%) 271098.5441 * 1.30%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-21 176194.4641 ( 0.00%) 175151.3256 * -0.59%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-30 119927.3862 ( 0.00%) 120610.1348 * 0.57%*
> Hmean faults/cpu-40 91203.6820 ( 0.00%) 91832.7489 * 0.69%*
> Hmean faults/sec-1 623292.3467 ( 0.00%) 617992.0795 * -0.85%*
> Hmean faults/sec-4 2113364.6898 ( 0.00%) 2140254.8238 * 1.27%*
> Hmean faults/sec-7 2557378.4385 ( 0.00%) 2450945.7060 * -4.16%*
> Hmean faults/sec-12 2696509.8975 ( 0.00%) 2747968.9819 * 1.91%*
> Hmean faults/sec-21 2902892.5639 ( 0.00%) 2905923.3881 * 0.10%*
> Hmean faults/sec-30 2956696.5793 ( 0.00%) 2990583.5147 * 1.15%*
> Hmean faults/sec-40 3422806.4806 ( 0.00%) 3352970.3082 * -2.04%*
> Stddev faults/cpu-1 2949.5159 ( 0.00%) 2802.2712 ( 4.99%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-4 24165.9454 ( 0.00%) 15841.1232 ( 34.45%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-7 20914.8351 ( 0.00%) 22744.3294 ( -8.75%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-12 11274.3490 ( 0.00%) 14733.3152 ( -30.68%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-21 2500.1950 ( 0.00%) 2200.9518 ( 11.97%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-30 1599.5346 ( 0.00%) 1414.0339 ( 11.60%)
> Stddev faults/cpu-40 1473.0181 ( 0.00%) 3004.1209 (-103.94%)
> Stddev faults/sec-1 2655.2581 ( 0.00%) 2405.1625 ( 9.42%)
> Stddev faults/sec-4 84042.7234 ( 0.00%) 57996.7158 ( 30.99%)
> Stddev faults/sec-7 123656.7901 ( 0.00%) 135591.1087 ( -9.65%)
> Stddev faults/sec-12 97135.6091 ( 0.00%) 127054.4926 ( -30.80%)
> Stddev faults/sec-21 69564.6264 ( 0.00%) 65922.6381 ( 5.24%)
> Stddev faults/sec-30 51524.4027 ( 0.00%) 56109.4159 ( -8.90%)
> Stddev faults/sec-40 101927.5280 ( 0.00%) 160117.0093 ( -57.09%)
>
> With the exception of the hicup at 7 threads, things are pretty much in
> the noise region for both metrics.
>
> -- git checkout
>
> First metric is total runtime for runs with incremental threads.
>
> v5.0-rc6 v5.0-rc6
> dirty
> User 218.95 219.07
> System 149.29 146.82
> Elapsed 1574.10 1427.08
>
> In this case there's a non trivial improvement (11%) in overall
> elapsed time.
>
> -- reaim (which is always succeptible to rwsem changes for both
> mmap_sem and
> i_mmap)
> v5.0-rc6 v5.0-rc6
> dirty
> Hmean compute-1 6674.01 ( 0.00%) 6544.28 * -1.94%*
> Hmean compute-21 85294.91 ( 0.00%) 85524.20 * 0.27%*
> Hmean compute-41 149674.70 ( 0.00%) 149494.58 * -0.12%*
> Hmean compute-61 177721.15 ( 0.00%) 170507.38 * -4.06%*
> Hmean compute-81 181531.07 ( 0.00%) 180463.24 * -0.59%*
> Hmean compute-101 189024.09 ( 0.00%) 187288.86 * -0.92%*
> Hmean compute-121 200673.24 ( 0.00%) 195327.65 * -2.66%*
> Hmean compute-141 213082.29 ( 0.00%) 211290.80 * -0.84%*
> Hmean compute-161 207764.06 ( 0.00%) 204626.68 * -1.51%*
>
> The 'compute' workload overall takes a small hit.
>
> Hmean new_dbase-1 60.48 ( 0.00%) 60.63 * 0.25%*
> Hmean new_dbase-21 6590.49 ( 0.00%) 6671.81 * 1.23%*
> Hmean new_dbase-41 14202.91 ( 0.00%) 14470.59 * 1.88%*
> Hmean new_dbase-61 21207.24 ( 0.00%) 21067.40 * -0.66%*
> Hmean new_dbase-81 25542.40 ( 0.00%) 25542.40 * 0.00%*
> Hmean new_dbase-101 30165.28 ( 0.00%) 30046.21 * -0.39%*
> Hmean new_dbase-121 33638.33 ( 0.00%) 33219.90 * -1.24%*
> Hmean new_dbase-141 36723.70 ( 0.00%) 37504.52 * 2.13%*
> Hmean new_dbase-161 42242.51 ( 0.00%) 42117.34 * -0.30%*
> Hmean shared-1 76.54 ( 0.00%) 76.09 * -0.59%*
> Hmean shared-21 7535.51 ( 0.00%) 5518.75 * -26.76%*
> Hmean shared-41 17207.81 ( 0.00%) 14651.94 * -14.85%*
> Hmean shared-61 20716.98 ( 0.00%) 18667.52 * -9.89%*
> Hmean shared-81 27603.83 ( 0.00%) 23466.45 * -14.99%*
> Hmean shared-101 26008.59 ( 0.00%) 29536.96 * 13.57%*
> Hmean shared-121 28354.76 ( 0.00%) 43139.39 * 52.14%*
> Hmean shared-141 38509.25 ( 0.00%) 41619.35 * 8.08%*
> Hmean shared-161 40496.07 ( 0.00%) 44303.46 * 9.40%*
>
> Overall there is a small hit (in the noise level but consistent
> throughout
> many workloads), except git-checkout which does quite well.
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
Thanks for running the patch through your performance tests.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists