| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <c4a244e0-1be3-9be9-a56f-6dfb0c5c5d88@leemhuis.info>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2022 14:29:41 +0200
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Cc: lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [btrfs] ca6dee6b79:
fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_72_bufferedio.works/sec -8.4% regression #forregzbot
TWIMC: this mail is primarily send for documentation purposes and for
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot. These mails usually
contain '#forregzbot' in the subject, to make them easy to spot and filter.
On 30.08.22 12:21, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 7:58 AM Yujie Liu <yujie.liu@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>> We noticed that this case was reported when the patch was in linux-next.
>> Thanks for your comment that it is an expected result due to heavy rename.
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Ysb4T7Z8hKgdvPRk@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
>>
>> This report is due to the patch being merged into mainline, if it is still
>> the same case, please ignore this duplicate report. Sorry for the inconvenience.
>
> Yes, it's the same.
In that case:
#regzbot invalid: kinda expected, as explained in
https://lore.kernel.org/all/Ysb4T7Z8hKgdvPRk@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
>> On 8/30/2022 11:17, kernel test robot wrote:
>>> Greeting,
>>>
>>> FYI, we noticed a -8.4% regression of fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_72_bufferedio.works/sec due to commit:
>>>
>>>
>>> commit: ca6dee6b7946794fa340a7290ca399a50b61705f ("btrfs: balance btree dirty pages and delayed items after a rename")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>>
>>> in testcase: fxmark
>>> on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Ice Lake) with 128G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>>
>>> disk: 1SSD
>>> media: ssd
>>> test: MWRM
>>> fstype: btrfs
>>> directio: bufferedio
>>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>> ucode: 0xd000363
>>>
>>> test-description: FxMark is a filesystem benchmark that test multicore scalability.
>>> test-url: https://github.com/sslab-gatech/fxmark
>>>
>>>
>>> =========================================================================================
>>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/directio/disk/fstype/kconfig/media/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode:
>>> gcc-11/performance/bufferedio/1SSD/btrfs/x86_64-rhel-8.3/ssd/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp5/MWRM/fxmark/0xd000363
>>>
>>> commit:
>>> b8bea09a45 ("btrfs: add trace event for submitted RAID56 bio")
>>> ca6dee6b79 ("btrfs: balance btree dirty pages and delayed items after a rename")
>>>
>>> b8bea09a456fc31a ca6dee6b7946794fa340a7290ca
>>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>>> %stddev %change %stddev
>>> \ | \
>>> 1821853 -13.9% 1568247 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_36_bufferedio.works
>>> 36436 -13.9% 31362 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_36_bufferedio.works/sec
>>> 1675102 -14.0% 1439994 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_54_bufferedio.works
>>> 33497 -14.0% 28796 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_54_bufferedio.works/sec
>>> 1572332 -8.4% 1440600 ± 6% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_72_bufferedio.works
>>> 31445 -8.4% 28809 ± 6% fxmark.ssd_btrfs_MWRM_72_bufferedio.works/sec
>>> 356010 +80.0% 640832 fxmark.time.involuntary_context_switches
>>> 68.50 -24.1% 52.00 fxmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
>>> 630.47 -24.0% 479.23 fxmark.time.system_time
>>> 1.335e+10 +49.8% 2e+10 cpuidle..time
>>> 1045 ± 4% +11.8% 1168 uptime.idle
>>> 31.54 +50.2% 47.37 iostat.cpu.idle
>>> 64.16 -24.7% 48.29 iostat.cpu.system
>>> 31.17 +50.3% 46.83 vmstat.cpu.id
>>> 12.83 ± 5% -55.8% 5.67 ± 8% vmstat.procs.r
>>> 32.13 +15.8 47.95 mpstat.cpu.all.idle%
>>> 0.47 ± 7% +0.1 0.53 ± 3% mpstat.cpu.all.iowait%
>>> 63.37 -16.1 47.31 mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
>>> 10.04 ± 3% +13.5% 11.39 ± 3% perf-stat.i.metric.K/sec
>>> 869.81 ± 10% -16.2% 728.74 ± 15% perf-stat.i.node-loads
>>> 871.23 ± 10% -16.2% 730.49 ± 15% perf-stat.ps.node-loads
>>> 3004 ± 8% -52.1% 1440 ± 6% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
>>> 1218568 -10.8% 1086453 numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive
>>> 351812 ± 3% -29.0% 249640 ± 12% numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive(anon)
>>> 120150 -79.3% 24861 ± 3% numa-meminfo.node0.Shmem
>>> 3489 ± 8% -45.0% 1919 ± 2% meminfo.Active(anon)
>>> 492107 -19.0% 398809 meminfo.Committed_AS
>>> 382253 -24.6% 288151 meminfo.Inactive(anon)
>>> 124727 -76.8% 28886 ± 2% meminfo.Shmem
>>> 2050 ± 4% -10.5% 1834 ± 5% meminfo.Writeback
>>> 750.83 ± 8% -52.1% 360.00 ± 6% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_active_anon
>>> 87951 ± 3% -29.0% 62408 ± 12% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_inactive_anon
>>> 30038 -79.3% 6216 ± 3% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_shmem
>>> 750.83 ± 8% -52.1% 360.00 ± 6% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_active_anon
>>> 87951 ± 3% -29.0% 62408 ± 12% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_inactive_anon
>>> 7554028 ± 3% -71.2% 2174126 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.avg
>>> 7640393 ± 3% -70.5% 2254050 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.max
>>> 7291209 ± 3% -73.6% 1926973 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
>>> 873.62 ± 7% -19.2% 705.68 ± 10% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.avg
>>> 790.32 ± 7% -21.4% 621.34 ± 12% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.min
>>> 747.11 ± 3% -22.7% 577.37 ± 3% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.avg
>>> 670.92 ± 5% -25.2% 501.70 ± 2% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.min
>>> 409.44 ± 9% -35.1% 265.80 ± 21% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est_enqueued.avg
>>> 789.44 ± 3% -20.1% 630.53 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est_enqueued.max
>>> 0.00 ± 13% -67.3% 0.00 ± 22% sched_debug.cpu.next_balance.stddev
>>> 872.67 ± 8% -45.0% 479.83 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_active_anon
>>> 1801345 -1.7% 1771330 proc-vmstat.nr_file_pages
>>> 95550 -24.6% 72037 proc-vmstat.nr_inactive_anon
>>> 8752 -3.7% 8426 proc-vmstat.nr_mapped
>>> 31169 -76.8% 7221 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
>>> 872.67 ± 8% -45.0% 479.83 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_active_anon
>>> 95550 -24.6% 72037 proc-vmstat.nr_zone_inactive_anon
>>> 9553 ± 10% -16.8% 7950 ± 3% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults
>>> 18886391 -3.6% 18207624 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
>>> 18770999 -3.6% 18091363 proc-vmstat.numa_local
>>> 7398756 -4.0% 7105675 proc-vmstat.pgactivate
>>> 18885154 -3.6% 18206666 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
>>> 7248262 -4.3% 6933915 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgdeactivate
>>> 18894473 -3.4% 18243898 proc-vmstat.pgfree
>>> 7829962 -3.0% 7596447 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgrotated
>>>
>>>
>>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <yujie.liu@...el.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> To reproduce:
>>>
>>> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
>>> cd lkp-tests
>>> sudo bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>>> bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml file for lkp run
>>> sudo bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
>>>
>>> # if come across any failure that blocks the test,
>>> # please remove ~/.lkp and /lkp dir to run from a clean state.
>>>
>>>
>>> Disclaimer:
>>> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
>>> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
>>> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> #regzbot introduced: ca6dee6b79
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LKP mailing list -- lkp@...ts.01.org
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to lkp-leave@...ts.01.org
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists