[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210912233219.GB2335@rh>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:32:19 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [xfs] ab23a77687: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.5% regression
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 10:23:55PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dave Chinner,
>
> we reported "[xfs] 6df693ed7b: aim7.jobs-per-min -15.7% regression" as [1]
> when this change is still on
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git xfs-5.15-merge
>
> now this change is on mainline.
> so we report again to highlight we still observe similar performance regression
> on mainline.
>
> previously we also tried to test by turning off RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER per your
> guidance, but still observed similar regression, though we are not sure if our
> method to turn off RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER is enough. the detail result is in [2]
>
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210809064248.GB5761@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210818085248.GA28771@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
Did you look at the config that was generated before running the
tests again?
> #
> # Automatically generated file; DO NOT EDIT.
> # Linux/x86_64 5.14.0-rc4 Kernel Configuration
> #
....
> CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_ATOMIC_RMW=y
> CONFIG_MUTEX_SPIN_ON_OWNER=y
> CONFIG_RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER=y
> CONFIG_LOCK_SPIN_ON_OWNER=y
....
So these tests were still run with the same RWSEM_SPIN_ON_OWNER=y
configuration, and so unsurprisingly the result was the same with
spin contention on the directory inode rwsem.
You'll save yourself (and everyone else) a lot of time by validating
that your config changes are valid before re-running tests...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
dchinner@...hat.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists