| 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: <ZecAHxE+y6BHVET8@lothringen> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:21:03 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org> To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com> Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@...utronix.de>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev, lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 10:17:43AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > 57e95a5c4117dc6a b2cf7507e18649a30512515ec0c a184d9835a0a689261ea6a4a8db > ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ | \ > 1364607 +11.8% 1525991 +10.3% 1504946 cpuidle..usage Does it mean more time spent in idle/C-states? That's unclear... > 45.86 ± 4% +8.4% 49.70 ± 5% +3.5% 47.46 ± 6% boot-time.boot > 5430 ± 5% +9.0% 5921 ± 5% +3.8% 5636 ± 6% boot-time.idle > 0.03 +0.0 0.04 +0.0 0.04 mpstat.cpu.all.soft% > 0.04 +0.0 0.08 +0.0 0.08 ± 2% mpstat.cpu.all.sys% > 4.14 -8.9% 3.77 ± 2% -8.3% 3.79 ± 2% mpstat.max_utilization_pct > 20726 ± 63% +246.1% 71744 ± 53% +68.2% 34867 ± 72% numa-numastat.node0.other_node > 1431327 ± 7% +13.9% 1630876 ± 3% +14.8% 1643375 ± 7% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit > 37532 ± 35% +62.1% 60841 ± 63% +160.8% 97891 ± 25% numa-numastat.node1.other_node > 201.33 ± 3% -28.5% 144.00 ± 8% -26.8% 147.40 ± 11% perf-c2c.DRAM.remote > 187.83 ± 3% -21.4% 147.67 ± 6% -37.0% 118.40 ± 11% perf-c2c.HITM.local > 40.67 ± 7% -54.5% 18.50 ± 19% -59.7% 16.40 ± 11% perf-c2c.HITM.remote > 1.36 ± 4% +10.7% 1.51 ± 3% +12.7% 1.53 ± 5% vmstat.procs.r > 5654 -1.9% 5549 -2.8% 5497 vmstat.system.cs > 5232 +10.7% 5790 +8.8% 5690 vmstat.system.in > 15247 ± 6% -5.0% 14490 ± 9% -8.8% 13903 ± 5% numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables > 12499 ± 6% +115.6% 26951 ± 3% +118.3% 27288 ± 2% numa-meminfo.node1.Active > 12489 ± 6% +115.7% 26940 ± 3% +118.2% 27249 ± 2% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon) > 12488 ± 6% +114.2% 26754 ± 3% +118.2% 27255 ± 2% numa-meminfo.node1.Shmem > 102.17 ± 8% +906.2% 1028 ± 5% +910.1% 1032 ± 5% time.involuntary_context_switches There is a lot more involuntary context switches. This could be due to timers performing wake ups expiring more often on busy CPUs. [...] > 4178 ± 2% +86.3% 7784 +87.3% 7826 ± 2% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_active_anon > 3064698 +4.4% 3200938 +4.2% 3193539 proc-vmstat.numa_hit > 3006439 +2.1% 3068397 +1.8% 3060785 proc-vmstat.numa_local > 58258 +127.6% 132587 +127.9% 132758 proc-vmstat.numa_other > 8114 ± 2% +63.2% 13244 ± 4% +62.6% 13190 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgactivate > 986600 +1.2% 998606 +0.9% 995307 proc-vmstat.pgfault > 20.00 +1905.0% 401.00 ± 79% +2050.0% 430.00 ± 79% proc-vmstat.unevictable_pgs_culled > 15.14 +17.0% 17.72 +17.4% 17.77 perf-stat.i.MPKI > 1.702e+08 +3.5% 1.762e+08 +3.3% 1.758e+08 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions > 1.68 +0.1 1.80 +0.1 1.81 perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate% > 7174339 +1.2% 7262760 +1.4% 7276699 perf-stat.i.branch-misses > 18.46 +3.4 21.86 +3.4 21.87 perf-stat.i.cache-miss-rate% > 4047319 +20.6% 4880009 +20.4% 4874638 perf-stat.i.cache-misses > 22007366 +2.6% 22586331 +2.5% 22565036 perf-stat.i.cache-references > 5620 -1.6% 5532 -2.5% 5482 perf-stat.i.context-switches > 1.84 +17.0% 2.15 +16.5% 2.14 perf-stat.i.cpi > 9.159e+08 +12.8% 1.033e+09 +12.4% 1.03e+09 perf-stat.i.cpu-cycles > 161.08 +193.1% 472.19 ± 2% +192.1% 470.47 ± 4% perf-stat.i.cpu-migrations A lot more task migrations. Not sure how to explain that. [...] > 160.61 +193.0% 470.58 ± 2% +191.9% 468.79 ± 4% perf-stat.ps.cpu-migrations > 8.433e+08 +3.0% 8.685e+08 +2.7% 8.665e+08 perf-stat.ps.instructions > 2.551e+11 +3.3% 2.636e+11 +3.1% 2.631e+11 perf-stat.total.instructions > 31.82 ± 3% -13.0 18.83 ± 12% -13.2 18.65 ± 6% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt.acpi_safe_halt.acpi_idle_enter.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter > 36.90 ± 2% -12.6 24.32 ± 10% -12.3 24.62 ± 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.acpi_idle_enter.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpuidle_idle_call.do_idle > 27.61 ± 3% -12.5 15.09 ± 14% -12.4 15.24 ± 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt.asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt.acpi_safe_halt.acpi_idle_enter.cpuidle_enter_state > 31.75 ± 2% -12.0 19.79 ± 12% -11.6 20.11 ± 5% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.acpi_safe_halt.acpi_idle_enter.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpuidle_idle_call Fewer C3 entries. [...] > 4.94 ± 5% +5.0 9.93 ± 9% +5.2 10.09 ± 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kthread.ret_from_fork.ret_from_fork_asm > 4.94 ± 5% +5.0 9.93 ± 9% +5.2 10.09 ± 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork.ret_from_fork_asm > 4.94 ± 5% +5.0 9.93 ± 9% +5.2 10.09 ± 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork_asm > 2.83 ± 9% +5.3 8.09 ± 13% +5.4 8.24 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.smpboot_thread_fn.kthread.ret_from_fork.ret_from_fork_asm > 1.70 ± 12% +5.6 7.28 ± 14% +5.8 7.54 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.net_rx_action.__do_softirq.run_ksoftirqd.smpboot_thread_fn.kthread > 1.70 ± 13% +5.6 7.28 ± 14% +5.8 7.54 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__napi_poll.net_rx_action.__do_softirq.run_ksoftirqd.smpboot_thread_fn > 1.70 ± 13% +5.6 7.28 ± 14% +5.8 7.54 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.process_backlog.__napi_poll.net_rx_action.__do_softirq.run_ksoftirqd > 1.73 ± 12% +5.6 7.31 ± 14% +5.8 7.57 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.run_ksoftirqd.smpboot_thread_fn.kthread.ret_from_fork.ret_from_fork_asm > 1.73 ± 12% +5.6 7.31 ± 14% +5.8 7.57 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__do_softirq.run_ksoftirqd.smpboot_thread_fn.kthread.ret_from_fork More time spent in ksoftirqd. One theory is that remote timer expiry delay napi polling, or the other way around... > 0.00 +13.2 13.15 ± 49% +11.3 11.25 ± 55% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.poll_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpuidle_idle_call.do_idle But a lot more poll_idle time spent. Which is suprising. Also this should impact power and not throughput... Thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists