| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 10:16:46 +0800
From: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To: john.hubbard@...il.com
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christian Benvenuti <benve@...co.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@...el.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
lkp@...org
Subject: [LKP] [mm/gup] e7ae097b0b: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -5.0%
regression
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -5.0% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
commit: e7ae097b0bda3e7dfd224e2a960346c37aa42394 ("[PATCH 5/6] mm/gup: /proc/vmstat support for get/put user pages")
url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/john-hubbard-gmail-com/RFC-v2-mm-gup-dma-tracking/20190205-001101
in testcase: will-it-scale
on test machine: 192 threads Skylake-4S with 704G memory
with following parameters:
nr_task: 100%
mode: process
test: futex1
cpufreq_governor: performance
test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
To reproduce:
git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
cd lkp-tests
bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
bin/lkp run job.yaml
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
gcc-7/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/process/100%/debian-x86_64-2018-04-03.cgz/lkp-skl-4sp1/futex1/will-it-scale
commit:
cdaa813278 ("mm/gup: track gup-pinned pages")
e7ae097b0b ("mm/gup: /proc/vmstat support for get/put user pages")
cdaa813278ddc616 e7ae097b0bda3e7dfd224e2a96
---------------- --------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
1808394 -5.0% 1717524 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
3.472e+08 -5.0% 3.298e+08 will-it-scale.workload
7936 +3.0% 8174 vmstat.system.cs
546083 ± 30% -41.7% 318102 ± 68% numa-numastat.node2.local_node
576076 ± 27% -40.3% 343781 ± 60% numa-numastat.node2.numa_hit
27067 -4.5% 25852 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
30283 -6.3% 28378 ± 3% proc-vmstat.pgactivate
18458 ± 5% +9.0% 20120 ± 5% slabinfo.kmalloc-96.active_objs
19055 ± 4% +7.7% 20521 ± 5% slabinfo.kmalloc-96.num_objs
1654 ± 5% +13.5% 1877 ± 3% slabinfo.pool_workqueue.active_objs
1747 ± 5% +10.9% 1937 ± 3% slabinfo.pool_workqueue.num_objs
17.13 ± 3% +2.3 19.45 ± 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.gup_pgd_range.get_user_pages_fast.get_futex_key.futex_wake.do_futex
0.00 +2.4 2.40 ± 9% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.mod_node_page_state.gup_pgd_range.get_user_pages_fast.get_futex_key.futex_wake
19.62 ± 3% +2.4 22.06 ± 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.get_user_pages_fast.get_futex_key.futex_wake.do_futex.__x64_sys_futex
26.50 ± 3% +2.8 29.33 ± 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.get_futex_key.futex_wake.do_futex.__x64_sys_futex.do_syscall_64
32.48 ± 3% +3.0 35.52 ± 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.futex_wake.do_futex.__x64_sys_futex.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
46.45 ±100% -67.5% 15.08 ± 22% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.stddev
0.04 ± 5% -11.4% 0.04 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_running.stddev
13.08 ± 4% +18.8% 15.54 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_load_avg.max
1.14 ± 4% +18.6% 1.35 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_load_avg.stddev
13543 ± 7% +9.5% 14825 ± 4% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_weight.max
1267 ± 5% +13.4% 1436 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_weight.stddev
1089 ± 3% +14.4% 1246 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.max
533.25 ± 7% +7.7% 574.21 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est_enqueued.max
1.17 ± 6% +18.1% 1.39 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[0].stddev
3321 +9.1% 3622 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.min
1355 ± 5% +10.1% 1493 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.load.stddev
1399 ± 6% -11.5% 1239 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.stddev
270.33 ± 8% +52.7% 412.92 ± 14% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.min
113.58 ± 3% +75.1% 198.88 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.min
6331 ± 17% +41.5% 8956 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.max
545.75 ± 5% +24.9% 681.80 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.stddev
89.38 +48.7% 132.92 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.min
48.21 ± 2% +82.6% 88.04 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.min
47917 ± 29% -71.3% 13757 ± 83% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_active_anon
30393 ± 45% -71.0% 8807 ±111% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_anon_pages
78776 ± 10% -24.6% 59392 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_file_pages
9592 ± 8% -10.3% 8602 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_kernel_stack
2706 ± 37% -32.6% 1824 ± 38% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
18243 ± 45% -90.1% 1803 ±118% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_shmem
9147 ± 19% -42.9% 5227 ± 42% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_reclaimable
18959 ± 7% -17.8% 15594 ± 14% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_unreclaimable
47917 ± 29% -71.3% 13758 ± 83% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_active_anon
34497 ± 41% +54.6% 53318 ± 19% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_anon
60479 ± 6% +9.6% 66283 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_file_pages
1419 ±122% +162.7% 3729 ± 45% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_anon
1571 ±112% +441.7% 8510 ± 73% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_shmem
34497 ± 41% +54.6% 53318 ± 19% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_active_anon
1419 ±122% +162.7% 3729 ± 45% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_inactive_anon
9145 ±104% +188.9% 26423 ± 48% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_active_anon
1476 ± 52% +432.0% 7853 ±101% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_anon_pages
3918 ± 20% +78.8% 7005 ± 20% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_slab_reclaimable
12499 ± 7% +22.7% 15336 ± 12% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_slab_unreclaimable
9145 ±104% +188.9% 26423 ± 48% numa-vmstat.node3.nr_zone_active_anon
194801 ± 28% -71.7% 55131 ± 83% numa-meminfo.node0.Active
191699 ± 28% -71.2% 55131 ± 83% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
38555 ± 84% -100.0% 0.00 numa-meminfo.node0.AnonHugePages
121677 ± 45% -70.9% 35356 ±111% numa-meminfo.node0.AnonPages
315090 ± 10% -24.6% 237568 ± 7% numa-meminfo.node0.FilePages
36584 ± 19% -42.8% 20912 ± 42% numa-meminfo.node0.KReclaimable
9594 ± 8% -10.3% 8603 ± 7% numa-meminfo.node0.KernelStack
10625 ± 34% -32.6% 7165 ± 36% numa-meminfo.node0.Mapped
892127 ± 11% -25.0% 668837 ± 13% numa-meminfo.node0.MemUsed
36584 ± 19% -42.8% 20912 ± 42% numa-meminfo.node0.SReclaimable
75840 ± 7% -17.8% 62378 ± 14% numa-meminfo.node0.SUnreclaim
72956 ± 45% -90.1% 7212 ±118% numa-meminfo.node0.Shmem
112426 ± 11% -25.9% 83290 ± 21% numa-meminfo.node0.Slab
138083 ± 41% +54.5% 213397 ± 19% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
241919 ± 6% +9.6% 265074 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node1.FilePages
5679 ±122% +162.6% 14916 ± 45% numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive(anon)
6284 ±112% +440.7% 33980 ± 73% numa-meminfo.node1.Shmem
36547 ±104% +189.0% 105608 ± 48% numa-meminfo.node3.Active
36547 ±104% +189.0% 105608 ± 48% numa-meminfo.node3.Active(anon)
5876 ± 52% +433.8% 31369 ±101% numa-meminfo.node3.AnonPages
15671 ± 20% +78.8% 28021 ± 20% numa-meminfo.node3.KReclaimable
592511 ± 8% +15.3% 683394 ± 8% numa-meminfo.node3.MemUsed
15671 ± 20% +78.8% 28021 ± 20% numa-meminfo.node3.SReclaimable
49997 ± 7% +22.7% 61344 ± 12% numa-meminfo.node3.SUnreclaim
65670 ± 6% +36.1% 89366 ± 14% numa-meminfo.node3.Slab
will-it-scale.per_process_ops
1.84e+06 +-+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
1.82e+06 +-+.. .+.+.. .+..+.+.+..+.+.+.. .+.+.+.. .+.. .+..+. .|
1.8e+06 +-+ + +.+ + +.+ +.+ +.+..+ |
| |
1.78e+06 +-+ |
| |
1.76e+06 +-+ |
| |
1.74e+06 +-+ |
1.72e+06 +-+ O O O O O O O O O |
| O O O O O O O O O |
1.7e+06 +-+ O O |
O O O O O |
1.68e+06 +-+--------------------------------------------------------------+
will-it-scale.workload
3.5e+08 +-+--------------------------------------------------------------+
|.+..+.+ + + +.+ +.+ +..+.+.+..+.+.+..+.+. .+.|
3.45e+08 +-+ +.+ +. |
| |
| |
3.4e+08 +-+ |
| |
3.35e+08 +-+ |
| |
3.3e+08 +-+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
| O O O O |
| O O |
3.25e+08 O-O O O O |
| |
3.2e+08 +-+--------------------------------------------------------------+
[*] bisect-good sample
[O] bisect-bad sample
Disclaimer:
Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
design or configuration may affect actual performance.
Thanks,
Rong Chen
View attachment "config-5.0.0-rc4-00005-ge7ae097" of type "text/plain" (169058 bytes)
View attachment "job-script" of type "text/plain" (7394 bytes)
View attachment "job.yaml" of type "text/plain" (4815 bytes)
View attachment "reproduce" of type "text/plain" (311 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists