[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220627151258.GB20878@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 23:12:58 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@...ux.dev>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, MPTCP Upstream <mptcp@...ts.linux.dev>,
"linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org>,
lkp@...ts.01.org, kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>,
Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>, Ying Xu <yinxu@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression
On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 07:52:55AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 5:34 AM Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com> wrote:
> > Yes, 1% is just around noise level for a microbenchmark.
> >
> > I went check the original test data of Oliver's report, the tests was
> > run 6 rounds and the performance data is pretty stable (0Day's report
> > will show any std deviation bigger than 2%)
> >
> > The test platform is a 4 sockets 72C/144T machine, and I run the
> > same job (nr_tasks = 25% * nr_cpus) on one CascadeLake AP (4 nodes)
> > and one Icelake 2 sockets platform, and saw 75% and 53% regresson on
> > them.
> >
> > In the first email, there is a file named 'reproduce', it shows the
> > basic test process:
> >
> > "
> > use 'performane' cpufre governor for all CPUs
> >
> > netserver -4 -D
> > modprobe sctp
> > netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K &
> > netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K &
> > netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K &
> > (repeat 36 times in total)
> > ...
> >
> > "
> >
> > Which starts 36 (25% of nr_cpus) netperf clients. And the clients number
> > also matters, I tried to increase the client number from 36 to 72(50%),
> > and the regression is changed from 69.4% to 73.7%
> >
>
> Am I understanding correctly that this 69.4% (or 73.7%) regression is
> with cgroup v2?
Yes.
> Eric did the experiments on v2 but on real hardware where the
> performance impact was negligible.
>
> BTW do you see similar regression for tcp as well or just sctp?
Yes, I run TCP_SENDFILE case with 'send_size'==10K, it hits a
70%+ regressioin.
Thanks,
Feng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists