| 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: <E0B1B4B6-8281-49AC-AC77-4920D209796F@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2023 16:41:29 +0000
From: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <saeed.mirzamohammadi@...cle.com>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.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
Hi Chen, Vincent,
> On Jun 13, 2023, at 11:37 PM, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> 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%
Apologize for the confusion, I should correct the v6.3 upstream result above. v6.3 doesn’t have any regression.
v6.3.y -> no regression
v5.15.y -> no regression
v5.4.y -> 5-8% regression.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 for testing this. For v5.4.y kernel (not for v6.3.y or v5.15.y), there is an 8% regression with the following test: ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent
And that’s ’shell8’ with ‘-c 448’ copies passed as argument.
Thanks,
Saeed
>
> thanks,
> Chenyu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists