| 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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:15:15 +0800
From: Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, lkp <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
lkp@...el.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/writeback] e5dbd33218:
will-it-scale.per_process_ops -3.8% regression
Hi Matthew,
On 4/23/2021 8:47 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 01:46:01PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed a -3.8% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>> commit: e5dbd33218bd8d87ab69f730ab90aed5fab7eb26 ("mm/writeback: Add wait_on_page_writeback_killable")
> That commit just adds a function. It doesn't add any callers. It must
> just be moving something around ...
The micro benchmark like will-it-scale is sensitive to the alignments
(text/data), so I apply the data align debug patch and re-test, the
regression reduced to -1.5%.
=========================================================================================
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/nr_task/mode/test/cpufreq_governor/ucode:
lkp-csl-2sp9/will-it-scale/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/x86_64-rhel-8.3-ge5dbd33218bd-no-dynamic/gcc-9/16/process/mmap2/performance/0x5003006
commit:
a142a3781e3dc0c03a48688cac619c2684eed18f (fs/cachefiles: Remove
wait_bit_key layout dependency)
86460bf788cb360a14811fadb3f94f9765ba5a23 (mm/writeback: Add
wait_on_page_writeback_killable)
a142a3781e3dc0c0 86460bf788cb360a14811fadb3f
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
9089952 -1.5% 8953838 will-it-scale.16.processes
568121 -1.5% 559614 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
9089952 -1.5% 8953838 will-it-scale.workload
>> 39f985c8f667c80a e5dbd33218bd8d87ab69f730ab9
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 9359770 -3.8% 9001769 will-it-scale.16.processes
>> 584985 -3.8% 562610 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
>> 9359770 -3.8% 9001769 will-it-scale.workload
>> 15996 -1.2% 15811 proc-vmstat.nr_kernel_stack
>> 23577 ± 10% +18.5% 27937 ± 7% softirqs.CPU48.SCHED
>> 5183 ± 41% +47.2% 7630 ± 7% interrupts.CPU1.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
>> 5183 ± 41% +47.2% 7630 ± 7% interrupts.CPU1.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
>> 54.33 ± 12% +18.4% 64.33 ± 7% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.count.schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock.poll_schedule_timeout.constprop.0.do_sys_poll
>> 153.34 ± 24% -45.9% 83.00 ± 25% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.max.ms.schedule_timeout.rcu_gp_kthread.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> 153.33 ± 24% -45.9% 82.99 ± 25% perf-sched.wait_time.max.ms.schedule_timeout.rcu_gp_kthread.kthread.ret_from_fork
>> 2.424e+10 -3.8% 2.332e+10 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
>> 0.47 +3.7% 0.48 perf-stat.i.cpi
>> 2.529e+10 -4.0% 2.428e+10 perf-stat.i.dTLB-loads
>> 1.15e+10 -3.8% 1.106e+10 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores
>> 54249733 -4.8% 51627939 perf-stat.i.iTLB-load-misses
>> 1.004e+11 -3.8% 9.661e+10 perf-stat.i.instructions
>> 2.15 -3.6% 2.07 perf-stat.i.ipc
>> 693.66 -3.9% 666.70 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec
>> 0.46 +3.7% 0.48 perf-stat.overall.cpi
>> 2.15 -3.6% 2.08 perf-stat.overall.ipc
>> 2.416e+10 -3.8% 2.324e+10 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
>> 2.52e+10 -4.0% 2.419e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads
>> 1.146e+10 -3.8% 1.102e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
>> 54065825 -4.8% 51454019 perf-stat.ps.iTLB-load-misses
>> 1.001e+11 -3.8% 9.628e+10 perf-stat.ps.instructions
>> 3.025e+13 -3.9% 2.908e+13 perf-stat.total.instructions
>> 0.89 ± 14% -0.1 0.77 ± 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.atime_needs_update.touch_atime.shmem_mmap.mmap_region.do_mmap
>> 0.14 ± 13% -0.1 0.04 ± 71% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.common_mmap
>> 0.61 ± 12% -0.1 0.52 ± 12% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.common_file_perm
>> 0.21 ± 8% -0.0 0.17 ± 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.vma_set_page_prot
>> 0.12 ± 8% -0.0 0.09 ± 12% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.blocking_notifier_call_chain
>> 0.12 ± 14% -0.0 0.09 ± 15% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.get_mmap_base
>> 0.09 ± 8% -0.0 0.07 ± 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.vm_pgprot_modify
>> 0.13 ± 15% +0.1 0.19 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.cap_capable
>> 0.03 ±102% +0.1 0.12 ± 12% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.munmap@plt
>> 0.14 ± 13% +0.1 0.24 ± 6% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.testcase
>> 0.33 ± 10% -0.1 0.23 ± 10% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.cap_vm_enough_memory
>> 0.13 ± 11% -0.1 0.03 ±100% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.common_mmap
>> 0.48 ± 12% -0.1 0.41 ± 12% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.common_file_perm
>> 0.49 ± 12% -0.1 0.43 ± 13% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.vm_area_alloc
>> 0.12 ± 8% -0.0 0.09 ± 12% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.blocking_notifier_call_chain
>> 0.12 ± 13% -0.0 0.09 ± 14% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_mmap_base
>> 0.11 ± 8% +0.0 0.16 ± 10% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_munmap
>> 0.11 ± 14% +0.1 0.18 ± 8% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.cap_capable
>> 0.12 ± 11% +0.1 0.20 ± 6% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.testcase
>> 0.01 ±223% +0.1 0.11 ± 13% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.munmap@plt
> I'm struggling to see anything in that that says anything other than
> "we did 3-4% less work". Maybe someone else has something useful to
> say about it?
> _______________________________________________
> LKP mailing list -- lkp@...ts.01.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to lkp-leave@...ts.01.org
--
Zhengjun Xing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists