| 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: <ZIlgD36syo5nGoZI@chenyu5-mobl2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 14:37:03 +0800
From: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com>
To: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <saeed.mirzamohammadi@...cle.com>
CC: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"zhangqiao22@...wei.com" <zhangqiao22@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: Reporting a performance regression in sched/fair on Unixbench
Shell Scripts with commit a53ce18cacb4
On 2023-06-13 at 19:35:55 +0000, Saeed Mirzamohammadi wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> > On Jun 9, 2023, at 9:52 AM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Saeed,
> >
> > On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:48, Saeed Mirzamohammadi
> > <saeed.mirzamohammadi@...cle.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I’m reporting a regression of up to 8% with Unixbench Shell Scripts benchmarks after the following commit:
> >>
> >> Commit Data:
> >> commit-id : a53ce18cacb477dd0513c607f187d16f0fa96f71
> >> subject : sched/fair: Sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
> >> author : vincent.guittot@...aro.org
> >> author date : 2023-03-17 16:08:10
> >>
> >>
> >> We have observed this on our v5.4 and v4.14 kernel and not yet tested 5.15 but I expect the same.
> >
> > It would be good to confirm that the regression is present on v6.3
> > where the patch has been merged originally. It can be that there is
> > hidden dependency with other patches introduced since v5.4
>
> Regression is present on v6.3 as well, examples:
> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent: ~6%
> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent: ~8%
> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent: ~2%
> >
> >
> >>
> >> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -0.01%
> >> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -0.1%
> >> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -0.12%%
> >> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -2.29%%
> >> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -4.22%
> >> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -4.23%
> >> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -5.54%
> >> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8%
> >> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.05%
> >> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -6.4%
> >> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8.35%
> >> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.09%
> >>
> >> Link to unixbench:
> >> github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
> >
> > I tried to reproduce the problem with v6.3 on my system but I don't
> > see any difference with or without the patch
> >
> > Do you have more details on your setup ? number of cpu and topology ?
> >
> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v4 @ 2.60GHz
>
> Topology:
> node 0 1
> 0: 10 21
> 1: 21 10
>
> Architecture: x86_64
> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
> CPU(s): 56
> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-55
> Thread(s) per core: 2
> Core(s) per socket: 14
> Socket(s): 2
> NUMA node(s): 2
>
Tested on a similar platform E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz which has 2 nodes,
24 cores/48 CPUs in total, however I could not reproduce the issue.
Since the regression was reported mainly against 224 and 448 copies case
on your platform, I tested unixbench shell1 with 4 x 48 = 192 copies.
a53ce18cacb477dd 213acadd21a080fc8cda8eebe6d
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
21304 +0.5% 21420 unixbench.score
632.43 +0.0% 632.44 unixbench.time.elapsed_time
632.43 +0.0% 632.44 unixbench.time.elapsed_time.max
11837046 -4.7% 11277727 unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
864713 +0.1% 865914 unixbench.time.major_page_faults
9600 +4.0% 9984 unixbench.time.maximum_resident_set_size
8.433e+08 +0.6% 8.48e+08 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
4096 +0.0% 4096 unixbench.time.page_size
3741 +1.1% 3783 unixbench.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
18341 +1.3% 18572 unixbench.time.system_time
5323 +0.6% 5353 unixbench.time.user_time
78197044 -3.1% 75791701 unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
57178573 +0.4% 57399061 unixbench.workload
There is no much difference with a53ce18cacb477dd applied or not.
a2e90611b9f425ad 829c1651e9c4a6f78398d3e6765
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
19985 +8.6% 21697 unixbench.score
632.64 -0.0% 632.53 unixbench.time.elapsed_time
632.64 -0.0% 632.53 unixbench.time.elapsed_time.max
11453985 +3.7% 11880259 unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
818996 +3.1% 844681 unixbench.time.major_page_faults
9600 +0.0% 9600 unixbench.time.maximum_resident_set_size
7.911e+08 +8.4% 8.575e+08 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
4096 +0.0% 4096 unixbench.time.page_size
3767 -0.4% 3752 unixbench.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
18873 -2.4% 18423 unixbench.time.system_time
4960 +7.1% 5313 unixbench.time.user_time
75436000 +10.8% 83581483 unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
53553404 +8.7% 58235303 unixbench.workload
Previously with 829c1651e9c4a6f introduced, there is 8.6% improvement. And this improvement
remains with a53ce18cacb477dd applied.
Can you send the full test script so I can have a try locally?
thanks,
Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists