[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJnxd7nw2T+1A0mf@google.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 02:52:39 +0000
From: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Pratik Sampat <psampat@...ux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lkp@...ts.01.org" <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
"lkp@...el.com" <lkp@...el.com>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"zhengjun.xing@...el.com" <zhengjun.xing@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [percpu] ace7e70901: aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec -2.3%
regression
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:26:14AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:08:03PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:22AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:06:06AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > > > hi Roman,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:54:59AM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > > > Ping
> > > >
> > > > sorry for late.
> > > >
> > > > the new patch makes the performance a little better but still has
> > > > 1.9% regression comparing to
> > > > f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation")
> > >
> > > Hi Oliver!
> > >
> > > Thank you for testing it!
> > >
> > > Btw, can you, please, confirm that the regression is coming specifically
> > > from ace7e70901 ("percpu: use reclaim threshold instead of running for every page")?
> > > I do see *some* regression in my setup, but the data is very noisy, so I'm not sure
> > > I can confirm it.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> >
> > Thanks Oliver and Roman. If this is the case, I'll drop the final patch
> > and just merge up to f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk
> > depopulation") into for-next as this is v5.14 anyway.
> >
> > Oliver, is there a way to trigger the kernel test robot for a specific
> > test?
>
> sorry for late.
No worries. Thanks for all you work!
> not sure what kind of specific test you want robot to do?
> if you mean for-next branch, if the branch is monitored by kernel test robot,
> after merge, it will be tested by robot automatically and the bisect will be
> triggered if there is still regression.
In this case, we believe there is a regression in
"aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec". I know my branches are monitored (hence
we suspect this regression), but it would be nice to be able to kick off
a test with a patch or set of patches on top to validate that the
regression is fixed on your hardware configuration. Unfortunately I
don't have a 100+ core machine lying around :P.
Sorry for the additional questions, but is there a time frame that the
kernel robot is expected scrape over my tree / what test suites get run
against any particular branch?
> I found the ace7e70901 has already been dropped from original branch (dennis-percpu/for-5.14),
Yeah I have temporarily dropped it to get the others into for-next for
now. I'll spend some time later this week digging deeper into this.
> and we have data for this branch as below. from data, the f183324133 (current
> branch tip) doesn't introduce regression comparing 5.12-rc7 in our tests.
>
> f183324133ea5 percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation 103673.09 102188.39 104325.06 104038.4 102908.57 104057.06
> 1c29a3ceaf5f0 percpu: use pcpu_free_slot instead of pcpu_nr_slots - 1 104777.31 102225.93 101657.6
> 8ea2e1e35d1eb percpu: factor out pcpu_check_block_hint() 102290.78 101853.87 102541.65
> d434405aaab7d Linux 5.12-rc7 102103.06 102248.12 101906.81 103033.13 102043.33
>
Thanks,
Dennis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists