[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <782f409a-ff90-831c-56a0-abb3c31ab8d8@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:56:50 +0800
From: "Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Roman Sudarikov <roman.sudarikov@...ux.intel.com>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexander Antonov <alexander.antonov@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [perf x86] b77491648e: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
-2.1% regression
On 2/6/2020 4:47 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> writes:
>
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -2.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: b77491648e6eb2f26b6edf5eaea859adc17f4dcc ("perf x86: Infrastructure for exposing an Uncore unit to PMON mapping")
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/roman-sudarikov-linux-intel-com/perf-x86-Exposing-IO-stack-to-IO-PMON-mapping-through-sysfs/20200118-075508
> Seems to be spurious bisect. I don't think that commit could change
> anything performance related.
Hi Andi,
I commented out some lines in arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c and
will-it-scale.per_process_ops increased.
commit:
v5.4
b77491648e ("perf x86: Infrastructure for exposing an Uncore unit to PMON mapping")
f33fe1b258 ("test")
v5.4 b77491648e6eb2f26b6edf5eae
f33fe1b258b2a4b2fc97600b2b testcase/testparams/testbox
---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
---------------------------
%stddev change %stddev change %stddev
\ | \ | \
47983 47004 47647
will-it-scale/performance-process-100%-signal1-ucode=0xb000038/lkp-bdw-ep6
47983 47004 47647 GEO-MEAN
will-it-scale.per_process_ops
diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
index 55201bfde2c84c..0dc9c455423d99 100644
--- a/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
+++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c
@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ static int uncore_pmu_register(struct
intel_uncore_pmu *pmu)
pmu->pmu.attr_groups = pmu->type->attr_groups;
}
- pmu->pmu.attr_update = attr_update;
+ // pmu->pmu.attr_update = attr_update;
if (pmu->type->num_boxes == 1) {
if (strlen(pmu->type->name) > 0)
@@ -903,7 +903,7 @@ static int uncore_pmu_register(struct
intel_uncore_pmu *pmu)
* Exposing mapping of Uncore units to corresponding Uncore PMUs
* through /sys/devices/uncore_<type>_<idx>/mapping
*/
- uncore_platform_mapping(pmu->type);
+ // uncore_platform_mapping(pmu->type);
ret = perf_pmu_register(&pmu->pmu, pmu->name, -1);
if (!ret)
Best Regards,
Rong Chen
>
> -Andi
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list -- lkp@...ts.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to lkp-leave@...ts.01.org
Powered by blists - more mailing lists