linux-kernel - Re: [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZfDr6qOaMVnyoB8W@pavilion.home>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:57:30 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>
To: kernel test robot <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

Le Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:09:24PM +0800, kernel test robot a écrit :
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> kernel test robot noticed a -1.2% regression of netperf.Throughput_Mbps on:
> 
> 
> commit: 7ee988770326fca440472200c3eb58935fe712f6 ("timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/core
> 
> testcase: netperf
> test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz (Ice Lake) with 256G memory
> parameters:
> 
> 	ip: ipv4
> 	runtime: 300s
> 	nr_threads: 200%
> 	cluster: cs-localhost
> 	test: SCTP_STREAM
> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202403011511.24defbbd-oliver.sang@intel.com
> 
> 
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> 
> 
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240301/202403011511.24defbbd-oliver.sang@intel.com
> 
> =========================================================================================
> cluster/compiler/cpufreq_governor/ip/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/runtime/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>   cs-localhost/gcc-12/performance/ipv4/x86_64-rhel-8.3/200%/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/300s/lkp-icl-2sp2/SCTP_STREAM/netperf
> 
> commit: 
>   57e95a5c41 ("timers: Introduce function to check timer base is_idle flag")
>   7ee9887703 ("timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model")

So I can reproduce. And after hours staring at traces I haven't really found
the real cause of this. 1% difference is not always easy to track down.
But here are some sort of conclusion so far:

_ There is an increase of ksoftirqd use (+13%) but if I boot with threadirqs
  before and after the patch (which means that ksoftirqd is used all the time
  for softirq handling) I still see the performance regression. So this
  shouldn't play a role here.

_ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues of timers on behalf of
  idle CPUs would delay NET_RX softirqs but it doesn't seem to be the case. I
  don't see TIMER vector delaying NET_RX vector after the hierarchical pull
  model, quite the opposite actually, they are less delayed overall.

_ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues would add scheduling
  latency. But it doesn't seem to be the case. Quite the opposite again,
  surprisingly.

_ I have observed that, in average, timers execute later with the hierarchical
  pull model. The following delta:
       time of callback execution - bucket_expiry
  is 3 times higher with the hierarchical pull model. Whether that plays a role
  is unclear. It might still be interesting to investigate.

_ The initial perf profile seem to suggest a big increase of task migration. Is
  it the result of ping-pong wakeup? Does that play a role?

Thanks.