| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:33:02 +0800
From: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com,
Zirong Lang <zlang@...hat.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple
allocations
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 06:03:03PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> hi Gao Xiang,
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:33:38AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:09:34AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >
> > > please be noted we noticed Gao Xiang and Dave Chinner have already had lots of
> > > discussion around this patch, which seems there is maybe new version later.
> > > we just sent out this report FYI the possible performance impact of this patch.
> > >
> > >
> > > Greeting,
> > >
> > > FYI, we noticed a -15.1% regression of fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec due to commit:
> >
> > Thanks for your report!
> >
> > At a glance, I have no idea why this commit can have performance
> > impacts. Is the result stable?
>
> in our tests, the result is quite stable.
> 45589 -15.1% 38687 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec
>
> and detail data is as below:
> for this commit:
> "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [
> 39192.224368,
> 39665.690567,
> 38980.680601,
> 37298.99538,
> 37483.256377,
> 39504.606569
> ],
>
> for parent:
> "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [
> 45381.458009,
> 45314.376204,
> 45724.688965,
> 45751.955937,
> 45614.323267,
> 45747.216475
> ],
>
>
> if you still have concern, we could rerun tests. Thanks!
According to the report, I can see:
67262 -29.6% 47384 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works/sec
52786 -15.6% 44567 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works/sec
63189 -23.3% 48486 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works/sec
>
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gao Xiang
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: ada76f94c5b32c1828955d70f692b111a9ec2d33 ("[PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations")
> > > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Gao-Xiang/xfs-account-extra-freespace-btree-splits-for-multiple-allocations/20221109-114953
> > > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git for-next
> > > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221109034802.40322-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com/
> > > patch subject: [PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations
> > >
> > > 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: MWCM
> > > fstype: xfs
> > > directio: directio
> > > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > >
> > > test-description: FxMark is a filesystem benchmark that test multicore scalability.
> > > test-url: https://github.com/sslab-gatech/fxmark
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> > > | Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202211220854.48dad6fd-oliver.sang@intel.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Details are as below:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > =========================================================================================
> > > compiler/cpufreq_governor/directio/disk/fstype/kconfig/media/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> > > gcc-11/performance/directio/1SSD/xfs/x86_64-rhel-8.3/ssd/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp5/MWCM/fxmark
> > >
> > > commit:
> > > 4eb559dd15 ("Merge tag 'refcount-cow-domain-6.1_2022-10-31' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux into xfs-6.1-fixesA")
> > > ada76f94c5 ("xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations")
> > >
> > > 4eb559dd15671cca ada76f94c5b32c1828955d70f69
> > > ---------------- ---------------------------
> > > %stddev %change %stddev
> > > \ | \
> > > 260.92 +90.8% 497.93 ± 13% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.idle_sec
> > > 29.10 +91.5% 55.74 ± 14% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.idle_util
> > > 9.11 ± 2% -17.6% 7.51 ± 8% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.iowait_sec
> > > 1.02 ± 2% -17.3% 0.84 ± 8% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.iowait_util
> > > 617.96 -38.8% 378.15 ± 19% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.sys_sec
> > > 68.93 -38.6% 42.31 ± 18% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.sys_util
> > > 1.80 ± 4% -18.5% 1.47 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.user_sec
> > > 0.20 ± 4% -18.2% 0.16 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.user_util
> > > 3363535 -29.6% 2369575 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works
> > > 67262 -29.6% 47384 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works/sec
> > > 0.01 ±111% +51925.0% 3.47 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.idle_sec
> > > 0.01 ±111% +52382.0% 6.99 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.idle_util
> > > 0.23 ± 14% +1481.9% 3.64 ± 14% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.iowait_sec
> > > 0.46 ± 14% +1496.0% 7.33 ± 14% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.iowait_util
> > > 0.58 +20.9% 0.70 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.irq_sec
> > > 1.15 +21.9% 1.40 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.irq_util
> > > 0.37 ± 2% +18.9% 0.44 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.softirq_sec
> > > 0.74 ± 2% +20.0% 0.89 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.softirq_util
> > > 47.70 -15.4% 40.33 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.sys_sec
> > > 95.24 -14.7% 81.24 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.sys_util
> > > 1.20 ± 5% -11.0% 1.07 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.user_sec
> > > 2.40 ± 6% -10.2% 2.15 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.user_util
> > > 2639345 -15.6% 2228369 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works
> > > 52786 -15.6% 44567 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works/sec
> > > 4.11 ± 3% +254.5% 14.56 ± 18% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.idle_sec
> > > 4.10 ± 3% +255.9% 14.60 ± 18% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.idle_util
> > > 1.42 ± 6% +435.2% 7.57 ± 6% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.iowait_sec
> > > 1.41 ± 6% +437.2% 7.59 ± 6% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.iowait_util
> > > 0.82 +20.2% 0.99 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.irq_sec
> > > 0.82 +20.7% 0.99 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.irq_util
> > > 0.52 ± 4% +30.0% 0.67 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.softirq_sec
> > > 0.52 ± 4% +30.5% 0.67 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.softirq_util
> > > 91.86 -18.6% 74.82 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.sys_sec
> > > 91.73 -18.3% 74.99 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.sys_util
> > > 1.42 ± 4% -18.7% 1.15 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.user_sec
> > > 1.42 ± 4% -18.4% 1.16 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.user_util
> > > 3159498 -23.2% 2425056 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works
> > > 63189 -23.3% 48486 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works/sec
> > > 413.60 ± 4% +103.5% 841.63 ± 20% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.idle_sec
> > > 22.94 ± 4% +103.9% 46.78 ± 20% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.idle_util
> > > 1364 -31.6% 933.33 ± 19% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.sys_sec
> > > 75.70 -31.5% 51.85 ± 18% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.sys_util
> > > 1.82 ± 4% -11.7% 1.60 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.user_sec
> > > 0.10 ± 4% -11.5% 0.09 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.user_util
> > > 2850816 -22.9% 2197955 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.works
> > > 57006 -22.9% 43943 ± 7% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.works/sec
> > > 54.22 +63.5% 88.65 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.idle_sec
> > > 27.33 +64.7% 45.02 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.idle_util
> > > 6.53 +36.1% 8.89 ± 8% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.iowait_sec
> > > 3.29 +37.1% 4.51 ± 8% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.iowait_util
> > > 1.37 +21.7% 1.67 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.irq_sec
> > > 0.69 +22.6% 0.85 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.irq_util
> > > 0.64 +20.3% 0.77 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.softirq_sec
> > > 0.32 +21.2% 0.39 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.softirq_util
> > > 134.06 -28.6% 95.67 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.sys_sec
> > > 67.58 -28.1% 48.59 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.sys_util
> > > 1.55 ± 2% -18.4% 1.26 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.user_sec
> > > 0.78 ± 2% -17.8% 0.64 ± 5% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.user_util
> > > 3262962 -26.9% 2383952 fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.works
> > > 65256 -26.9% 47670 fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.works/sec
> > > 489.98 ± 3% +160.6% 1277 ± 24% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.idle_sec
> > > 18.11 ± 3% +161.0% 47.27 ± 24% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.idle_util
> > > 2185 -36.3% 1391 ± 22% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.sys_sec
> > > 80.77 -36.2% 51.49 ± 22% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.sys_util
> > > 2448443 -24.0% 1859708 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.works
> > > 48963 -24.1% 37175 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.works/sec
> > > 614.60 ± 2% +88.5% 1158 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.idle_sec
> > > 17.04 ± 2% +88.6% 32.13 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.idle_util
> > > 6.44 ± 4% -14.8% 5.48 ± 9% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.iowait_sec
> > > 0.18 ± 4% -14.8% 0.15 ± 10% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.iowait_util
> > > 2953 -18.5% 2407 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.sys_sec
> > > 81.89 -18.5% 66.77 ± 4% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.sys_util
> > > 2279692 -15.1% 1935171 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works
> > > 45589 -15.1% 38687 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec
> > > 934.32 -10.3% 838.20 fxmark.time.elapsed_time
> > > 934.32 -10.3% 838.20 fxmark.time.elapsed_time.max
> > > 43490089 -20.8% 34446960 ± 3% fxmark.time.file_system_outputs
> > > 128601 ± 3% -31.6% 87922 ± 4% fxmark.time.involuntary_context_switches
> > > 31.83 -17.8% 26.17 ± 5% fxmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
> > > 301.24 -26.5% 221.43 ± 5% fxmark.time.system_time
> > > 841264 ± 3% -11.2% 747133 ± 5% fxmark.time.voluntary_context_switches
> > > 989.01 -9.6% 893.57 uptime.boot
> > > 54.77 +10.7% 60.61 iostat.cpu.idle
> > > 5.31 ± 4% +21.4% 6.45 ± 4% iostat.cpu.iowait
> > > 38.42 -18.0% 31.51 ± 2% iostat.cpu.system
> > > 55.66 +5.8 61.45 mpstat.cpu.all.idle%
> > > 5.31 ± 5% +1.2 6.46 ± 4% mpstat.cpu.all.iowait%
> > > 0.60 ± 2% -0.1 0.53 mpstat.cpu.all.soft%
> > > 36.50 -6.6 29.87 ± 3% mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
> > > 26496967 -20.9% 20947493 ± 2% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
> > > 26548700 -20.8% 21022864 ± 2% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
> > > 3332141 ± 6% -22.1% 2595871 ± 4% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
> > > 3400117 ± 5% -22.4% 2638708 ± 5% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
> > > 2211 +1.0% 2233 perf-stat.i.minor-faults
> > > 0.39 ± 9% +0.1 0.44 ± 3% perf-stat.i.node-load-miss-rate%
> > > 2211 +1.0% 2233 perf-stat.i.page-faults
> > > 2209 +1.0% 2230 perf-stat.ps.minor-faults
> > > 2209 +1.0% 2230 perf-stat.ps.page-faults
> > > 53.83 +11.5% 60.00 vmstat.cpu.id
> > > 5430 ± 2% -14.0% 4668 ± 3% vmstat.io.bi
> > > 123556 -8.3% 113294 ± 2% vmstat.io.bo
> > > 11181852 -16.7% 9318758 ± 2% vmstat.memory.cache
> > > 7.67 ± 6% -19.6% 6.17 ± 11% vmstat.procs.r
> > > 9247281 -15.1% 7847381 meminfo.Cached
> > > 3299044 ± 2% -21.5% 2591082 ± 2% meminfo.Dirty
> > > 5715841 ± 2% -24.4% 4320653 ± 3% meminfo.Inactive
> > > 5389224 ± 2% -25.9% 3991807 ± 3% meminfo.Inactive(file)
> > > 1914390 -24.3% 1449759 ± 3% meminfo.KReclaimable
> > > 31406 ± 13% -22.0% 24510 ± 7% meminfo.KernelStack
> > > 14111361 -16.6% 11775228 ± 2% meminfo.Memused
> > > 1914390 -24.3% 1449759 ± 3% meminfo.SReclaimable
> > > 1427015 -25.6% 1061962 ± 4% meminfo.SUnreclaim
> > > 18397 ± 2% -8.4% 16846 meminfo.Shmem
> > > 3341406 -24.8% 2511722 ± 3% meminfo.Slab
> > > 24035030 -18.6% 19557858 ± 2% meminfo.max_used_kB
> > > 1.23 ± 22% +0.4 1.58 ± 18% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
> > > 0.76 ± 44% -0.4 0.38 ± 74% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_sched_clock_irq
> > > 0.09 ± 10% -0.0 0.05 ± 47% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.mod_find
> > > 0.10 ± 47% +0.1 0.18 ± 26% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xfs_iext_lookup_extent
> > > 0.17 ± 26% +0.1 0.25 ± 16% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.s_show
> > > 0.05 ± 82% +0.1 0.13 ± 46% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.timekeeping_advance
> > > 0.05 ± 82% +0.1 0.13 ± 46% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.update_wall_time
> > > 0.21 ± 21% +0.1 0.31 ± 20% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.vsnprintf
> > > 0.20 ± 26% +0.1 0.30 ± 17% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.seq_printf
> > > 1.23 ± 22% +0.4 1.58 ± 18% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work
> > > 0.08 ± 14% -0.0 0.04 ± 72% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.mod_find
> > > 0.14 ± 26% +0.1 0.22 ± 16% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work
> > > 0.13 ± 37% +0.1 0.21 ± 22% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__folio_end_writeback
> > > 1339 ± 6% -12.1% 1177 ± 6% numa-meminfo.node0.Active
> > > 1317 ± 4% -10.6% 1177 ± 6% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
> > > 2938921 ± 2% -22.3% 2284083 ± 2% numa-meminfo.node0.Dirty
> > > 4950896 ± 2% -25.3% 3699254 ± 2% numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive
> > > 4806022 ± 2% -27.0% 3510366 ± 3% numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive(file)
> > > 1663428 ± 2% -25.0% 1246833 ± 3% numa-meminfo.node0.KReclaimable
> > > 15585 ± 4% -12.4% 13655 ± 4% numa-meminfo.node0.KernelStack
> > > 1663428 ± 2% -25.0% 1246833 ± 3% numa-meminfo.node0.SReclaimable
> > > 1224137 ± 2% -25.5% 912586 ± 4% numa-meminfo.node0.SUnreclaim
> > > 15785 ± 5% -12.5% 13811 ± 4% numa-meminfo.node0.Shmem
> > > 2887566 -25.2% 2159421 ± 3% numa-meminfo.node0.Slab
> > > 358435 ± 3% -14.3% 307335 ± 6% numa-meminfo.node1.Dirty
> > > 764404 ± 6% -18.6% 622071 ± 10% numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive
> > > 582651 ± 2% -17.3% 482089 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive(file)
> > > 250653 ± 10% -18.9% 203397 ± 13% numa-meminfo.node1.KReclaimable
> > > 3410163 ± 54% -26.4% 2508459 ± 68% numa-meminfo.node1.MemUsed
> > > 250653 ± 10% -18.9% 203397 ± 13% numa-meminfo.node1.SReclaimable
> > > 202812 ± 17% -26.2% 149763 ± 5% numa-meminfo.node1.SUnreclaim
> > > 453467 ± 9% -22.1% 353161 ± 8% numa-meminfo.node1.Slab
> > > 0.71 ± 14% -21.5% 0.56 ± 14% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.h_nr_running.avg
> > > 1405 ± 55% -68.3% 445.08 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
> > > 5023746 -33.8% 3324248 ± 13% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.avg
> > > 5080937 -33.2% 3395209 ± 12% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.max
> > > 4683128 -31.3% 3217873 ± 13% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
> > > 0.59 ± 9% -17.4% 0.49 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_running.avg
> > > 650.51 ± 13% -32.3% 440.38 ± 9% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.avg
> > > 1007 ± 8% -18.5% 821.27 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.max
> > > 476.07 ± 17% -38.7% 291.80 ± 16% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.min
> > > 517.96 ± 5% -20.3% 412.57 ± 9% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.avg
> > > 352.69 ± 5% -26.1% 260.66 ± 14% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.min
> > > 113.13 ± 9% -26.8% 82.85 ± 15% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est_enqueued.stddev
> > > 18547 ± 4% -9.5% 16791 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.max
> > > 1549 ± 11% +1106.2% 18692 ±123% sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.stddev
> > > 0.70 ± 16% -25.1% 0.52 ± 18% sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.avg
> > > 862357 ± 4% -16.3% 722142 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.avg
> > > 1440368 ± 6% -22.2% 1120203 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
> > > 756963 ± 4% -14.6% 646359 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.min
> > > 150642 ± 10% -33.8% 99651 ± 18% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
> > > 17687949 -23.3% 13563229 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirtied
> > > 734675 ± 2% -22.3% 570784 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirty
> > > 1201580 ± 2% -27.0% 877113 ± 3% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_inactive_file
> > > 15586 ± 4% -12.4% 13655 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_kernel_stack
> > > 3945 ± 5% -12.5% 3453 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_shmem
> > > 415866 ± 2% -25.1% 311497 ± 3% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_reclaimable
> > > 306030 ± 2% -25.5% 228011 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> > > 17687949 -23.3% 13563229 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_written
> > > 1201580 ± 2% -27.0% 877113 ± 3% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_inactive_file
> > > 734697 ± 2% -22.3% 570821 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_write_pending
> > > 26548703 -20.8% 21023488 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
> > > 26496970 -20.9% 20948116 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
> > > 2316618 -20.7% 1836559 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirtied
> > > 89623 ± 3% -14.3% 76800 ± 6% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirty
> > > 145701 ± 2% -17.3% 120486 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_file
> > > 62668 ± 10% -18.9% 50828 ± 13% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_reclaimable
> > > 50710 ± 17% -26.2% 37434 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> > > 2316618 -20.7% 1836559 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_written
> > > 145701 ± 2% -17.3% 120486 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_inactive_file
> > > 89584 ± 3% -14.3% 76792 ± 6% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_write_pending
> > > 3400024 ± 5% -22.4% 2639087 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
> > > 3332048 ± 6% -22.1% 2596249 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
> > > 77508 +1.2% 78432 proc-vmstat.nr_anon_pages
> > > 20004568 -23.0% 15399788 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_dirtied
> > > 825597 ± 2% -21.4% 648654 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_dirty
> > > 2311462 -15.1% 1961741 proc-vmstat.nr_file_pages
> > > 29390035 +2.0% 29973527 proc-vmstat.nr_free_pages
> > > 1346949 ± 2% -25.9% 997847 ± 3% proc-vmstat.nr_inactive_file
> > > 31402 ± 13% -21.9% 24514 ± 7% proc-vmstat.nr_kernel_stack
> > > 4599 ± 2% -8.4% 4211 proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
> > > 478540 -24.3% 362476 ± 3% proc-vmstat.nr_slab_reclaimable
> > > 356646 -25.6% 265413 ± 4% proc-vmstat.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> > > 20004568 -23.0% 15399788 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_written
> > > 1346949 ± 2% -25.9% 997847 ± 3% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_inactive_file
> > > 825584 ± 2% -21.4% 648681 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_write_pending
> > > 29951284 -21.0% 23664558 ± 2% proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> > > 29831574 -21.1% 23546349 ± 2% proc-vmstat.numa_local
> > > 51777954 -21.0% 40906350 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
> > > 5920 ± 2% -7.6% 5472 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgdeactivate
> > > 2342027 -8.5% 2142047 proc-vmstat.pgfault
> > > 51819442 -21.0% 40950599 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgfree
> > > 5071045 ± 3% -22.9% 3908046 ± 4% proc-vmstat.pgpgin
> > > 1.153e+08 -17.9% 94738236 proc-vmstat.pgpgout
> > > 141611 -6.3% 132656 proc-vmstat.pgreuse
> > > 10386182 ± 3% -24.2% 7877205 ± 4% proc-vmstat.pgrotated
> > > 36803772 -24.1% 27916664 ± 2% proc-vmstat.slabs_scanned
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > > https://01.org/lkp
> > >
> > >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists