linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: will-it-scale.per_process

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:20:04 +0800
From:   Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@...isdown.name>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@...il.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        lkp@...el.com, zhengjun.xing@...el.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 -22.7% regression



On 11/2/2020 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-11-20 17:53:14, Rong Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/2/20 5:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 02-11-20 17:15:43, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> Greeting,
>>>>
>>>> FYI, we noticed a -22.7% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> commit: bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e19038716f96f5a41 ("mm/memcg: unify swap and memsw page counters")
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>> I really fail to see how this can be anything else than a data structure
>>> layout change. There is one counter less.
>>>
>>> btw. are cgroups configured at all? What would be the configuration?
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> We used the default configure of cgroups, not sure what configuration you
>> want,
>> could you give me more details? and here is the cgroup info of will-it-scale
>> process:
>>
>> $ cat /proc/3042/cgroup
>> 12:hugetlb:/
>> 11:memory:/system.slice/lkp-bootstrap.service
> 
> OK, this means that memory controler is enabled and in use. Btw. do you
> get the original performance if you add one phony page_counter after the
> union?
> 
I add one phony page_counter after the union and re-test, the regression 
reduced to -1.2%. It looks like the regression caused by the data 
structure layout change.

=========================================================================================
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/nr_task/mode/test/cpufreq_governor/ucode/debug-setup:
 
lkp-hsw-4ex1/will-it-scale/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/x86_64-rhel-8.3/gcc-9/50%/process/page_fault2/performance/0x16/test1

commit:
   8d387a5f172f26ff8c76096d5876b881dec6b7ce
   bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e19038716f96f5a41
   b3233916ab0a883e1117397e28b723bd0e4ac1eb (debug patch add one phony 
page_counter after the union)

8d387a5f172f26ff bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e190 b3233916ab0a883e1117397e28b
---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
          %stddev     %change         %stddev     %change         %stddev
              \          |                \          |                \
     187632           -22.8%     144931            -1.2%     185391 
    will-it-scale.per_process_ops
   13509525           -22.8%   10435073            -1.2%   13348181 
    will-it-scale.workload



-- 
Zhengjun Xing