linux-kernel - Re: Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased up to 3x

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:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 15:03:40 +0200
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:     Norbert <nbrtt01@...il.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>, frederic@...nel.org
Subject: Re: Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased up to 3x

On Monday, October 18, 2021 1:25:02 PM CEST Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 09:08:58PM -0700, Norbert wrote:
> 
> > > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:43:45AM -0700, Norbert wrote:
> > > > > > Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased up to 3x.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Happened between 5.13.8 and 5.14.0. Still happening at least on 5.14.11.
> 
> > So git-bisect finally identified the following commit.
> > The performance difference came in a single step. Times were consistent with
> > my first post either the slow time or the fast time,
> > as far as I could tell during the bisection.
> > 
> > It is a bit unfortunate that this comes from an attempt to reduce OS noise.
> > 
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > commit a5183862e76fdc25f36b39c2489b816a5c66e2e5
> > Author: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
> > Date:   Thu May 13 01:29:16 2021 +0200
> > 
> >     tick/nohz: Conditionally restart tick on idle exit
> > 
> >     In nohz_full mode, switching from idle to a task will unconditionally
> >     issue a tick restart. If the task is alone in the runqueue or is the
> >     highest priority, the tick will fire once then eventually stop. But that
> >     alone is still undesired noise.
> > 
> >     Therefore, only restart the tick on idle exit when it's strictly
> >     necessary.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@...wei.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
> >     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> >     Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> >     Link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210512232924.150322-3-frederic@kernel.org
> > -----------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > Is there anything else to do to complete this report?
> 
> So it _could_ be you're seeing increased use of deeper idle states due
> to less noise. I'm forever forgetting what the most friendly tool is for
> checking that (powertop can I think), Rafael?

You can use turbostat too.

> One thing to try is boot with idle=halt and see if that makes a
> different.
> 
> Also, let me Cc all the people involved.. the thread starts:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/035c23b4-118e-6a35-36d9-1b11e3d679f8@gmail.com
>