[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c92cd67f-c2bd-7c5b-7668-7a2d64d2f8c5@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 10:15:41 -0500
From: "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Roman Sudarikov <roman.sudarikov@...ux.intel.com>,
0day robot <lkp@...el.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 2/12/2020 5:56 AM, Chen, Rong A wrote:
>
>
> 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);
The patch is for SKX uncore. The test machine looks like a BDX.
So the mapping_group should always be invisible.
The attr_update should not update.
I think there should be no performance impact.
static void uncore_platform_mapping(struct intel_uncore_type *t)
{
if (t->get_topology && t->set_mapping &&
!t->get_topology(t, max_dies) && !t->set_mapping(t, max_dies))
mapping_group.is_visible = NULL;
else
mapping_group.is_visible = not_visible;
}
Kan
>
> 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