Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 11:37:58 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <linux@...mhuis.info>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@...ux.intel.com>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] kernel.h further split

(sorry, sending it a second time with a different mail client, as vger
rejected my earlier mail with the "Content-Policy reject msg: Wrong
MIME labeling on 8-bit character texts." – and as of now I'm unable to
figure out what's wrong :-/ )

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:51:15 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 1:34 PM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 07, 2021 at 12:51:25PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:  
> > > The kernel.h is a set of something which is not related to each
> > > other and often used in non-crossed compilation units, especially
> > > when drivers need only one or two macro definitions from it.
> > >
> > > Here is the split of container_of(). The goals are the following:
> > > - untwist the dependency hell a bit
> > > - drop kernel.h inclusion where it's only used for container_of()
> > > - speed up C preprocessing.
> > >
> > > People, like Greg KH and Miguel Ojeda, were asking about the
> > > latter. Read below the methodology and test setup with outcome
> > > numbers.
> > >
> > > The methodology
> > > ===============
> > > The question here is how to measure in the more or less clean way
> > > the C preprocessing time when building a project like Linux
> > > kernel. To answer it, let's look around and see what tools do we
> > > have that may help. Aha, here is ccache tool that seems quite
> > > plausible to be used. Its core idea is to preprocess C file,
> > > count hash (MD4) and compare to ones that are in the cache. If
> > > found, return the object file, avoiding compilation stage.
> > >
> > > Taking into account the property of the ccache, configure and use
> > > it in the below steps:
> > >
> > > 1. Configure kernel with allyesconfig
> > >
> > > 2. Make it with `make` to be sure that the cache is filled with
> > >    the latest data. I.o.w. warm up the cache.
> > >
> > > 3. Run `make -s` (silent mode to reduce the influence of
> > >    the unrelated things, like console output) 10 times and
> > >    measure 'real' time spent.
> > >
> > > 4. Repeat 1-3 for each patch or patch set to get data sets before
> > >    and after.
> > >
> > > When we get the raw data, calculating median will show us the
> > > number. Comparing them before and after we will see the
> > > difference.
> > >
> > > The setup
> > > =========
> > > I have used the Intel x86_64 server platform (see partial output
> > > of `lscpu` below):
> > >
> > > $ lscpu
> > > Architecture:            x86_64
> > >   CPU op-mode(s):        32-bit, 64-bit
> > >   Address sizes:         46 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
> > >   Byte Order:            Little Endian
> > > CPU(s):                  88
> > >   On-line CPU(s) list:   0-87
> > > Vendor ID:               GenuineIntel
> > >   Model name:            Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz
> > >     CPU family:          6
> > >     Model:               79
> > >     Thread(s) per core:  2
> > >     Core(s) per socket:  22
> > >     Socket(s):           2
> > >     Stepping:            1
> > >     CPU max MHz:         3600.0000
> > >     CPU min MHz:         1200.0000
> > > ...
> > > Caches (sum of all):
> > >   L1d:                   1.4 MiB (44 instances)
> > >   L1i:                   1.4 MiB (44 instances)
> > >   L2:                    11 MiB (44 instances)
> > >   L3:                    110 MiB (2 instances)
> > > NUMA:
> > >   NUMA node(s):          2
> > >   NUMA node0 CPU(s):     0-21,44-65
> > >   NUMA node1 CPU(s):     22-43,66-87
> > > Vulnerabilities:
> > >   Itlb multihit:         KVM: Mitigation: Split huge pages
> > >   L1tf:                  Mitigation; PTE Inversion; VMX
> > > conditional cache flushes, SMT vulnerable Mds:
> > > Mitigation; Clear CPU buffers; SMT vulnerable Meltdown:
> > >    Mitigation; PTI Spec store bypass:     Mitigation; Speculative
> > > Store Bypass disabled via prctl and seccomp Spectre v1:
> > >  Mitigation; usercopy/swapgs barriers and __user pointer
> > > sanitization Spectre v2:            Mitigation; Full generic
> > > retpoline, IBPB conditional, IBRS_FW, STIBP conditional, RSB
> > > filling Tsx async abort:       Mitigation; Clear CPU buffers; SMT
> > > vulnerable
> > >
> > > With the following GCC:
> > >
> > > $ gcc --version
> > > gcc (Debian 10.3.0-11) 10.3.0
> > >
> > > The commands I have run during the measurement were:
> > >
> > >       rm -rf $O
> > >       make O=$O allyesconfig
> > >       time make O=$O -s -j64  # this step has been measured

BTW, what kcbench does in the end is not that different, but it only
builds the config once and that uses it for all further testing. 

> > > The raw data and median
> > > =======================
> > > Before patch 2 (yes, I have measured the only patch 2 effect) in
> > > the series (the data is sorted by time):
> > >
> > > real    2m8.794s
> > > real    2m11.183s
> > > real    2m11.235s
> > > real    2m11.639s
> > > real    2m11.960s
> > > real    2m12.014s
> > > real    2m12.609s
> > > real    2m13.177s
> > > real    2m13.462s
> > > real    2m19.132s
> > >
> > > After patch 2 has been applied:
> > >
> > > real    2m8.536s
> > > real    2m8.776s
> > > real    2m9.071s
> > > real    2m9.459s
> > > real    2m9.531s
> > > real    2m9.610s
> > > real    2m10.356s
> > > real    2m10.430s
> > > real    2m11.117s
> > > real    2m11.885s
> > >
> > > Median values are:
> > >       131.987s before
> > >       129.571s after
> > >
> > > We see the steady speedup as of 1.83%.  
> >
> > You do know about kcbench:
> >         https://gitlab.com/knurd42/kcbench.git
> >
> > Try running that to make it such that we know how it was tested :)  
> 
> I'll try it.
> 
> Meanwhile, Thorsten, can you have a look at my approach and tell if it
> makes sense?

I'm not the right person to ask here, I don't know enough about the
inner working of ccache and C preprocessing. Reminder: I'm not a real
kernel/C developer, but more kind of a parasite that lives on the
fringes of kernel development. ;-) Kcbench in fact originated as a
benchmark magazine for the computer magazine I used to work for – where
I also did quite a few benchmarks. But that knowledge might be helpful
here:

The measurements before and after patch 2 was applied get slower over
time. That is a hint that something is interfering. Is the disk filling
up and making the fs do more work? Or is the machine getting to hot? It
IMHO would be worth investigating and ruling out, as the differences
you are looking out are likely quite small

Also: the last run of the first measurement cycle is off by quite a
bit, so I wouldn't even include the result, as there like was something
that disturbed the benchmark.

And I might be missing something, but why were you using "-j 64" on a
machine with 44 cores/88 threads? I wonder if that might lead do
interesting effects due to SMT (some core will run two threads, other
only one). Using either "-j 44" or "-j 88" might be better. But I
suggest you run kcbench once without specifying "-j", as that will
check which setting is the fastest on this system – and then use that
for all further tests.

HTH, Ciao, Thorsten 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists