From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [fs/locks] 9d21d181d0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -14.1% regression
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:41:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1496317284.2845.4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170601020556.GE16905@yexl-desktop>
On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -14.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2ec4eed77b656793 ("fs/locks: Set fl_nspid at file_lock allocation")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Benjamin-Coddington/fs-locks-Alloc-file_lock-where-practical/20170527-050700
>
>
Ouch, that's a rather nasty performance hit. In hindsight, maybe we
shouldn't move those off the stack after all? Heck, if it's that
significant, maybe we should move the F_SETLK callers to allocate these
on the stack as well?
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz with 4G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> test: lock1
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>
> In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.9% regression |
> > test machine | 16 threads Intel(R) Atom(R) CPU 3958 @ 2.00GHz with 64G memory |
> > test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> > | mode=process |
> > | nr_task=100% |
> > | test=lock1 |
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> To reproduce:
>
> git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git
> cd lkp-tests
> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>
> testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/lock1-performance/lkp-ivb-d04
>
> 09790e423b32fba4 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2e
> ---------------- --------------------------
> 0.51 19% 0.60 ± 7% will-it-scale.scalability
> 2462089 -14% 2114597 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> 2195246 -26% 1631578 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 350 356 will-it-scale.time.system_time
> 28.89 -24% 22.06 will-it-scale.time.user_time
> 32.78 31.97 turbostat.PkgWatt
> 15.58 -5% 14.80 turbostat.CorWatt
> 19284 18803 vmstat.system.in
> 32208 -4% 31052 vmstat.system.cs
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.avg.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.max.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.sum.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1.911e+09 ± 6% 163% 5.022e+09 ± 5% perf-stat.cache-references
> 27.58 ± 12% 17% 32.14 ± 7% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 9881103 -4% 9527607 perf-stat.context-switches
> 9.567e+11 ± 9% -14% 8.181e+11 ± 9% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
> 6.85e+11 ± 4% -16% 5.761e+11 ± 6% perf-stat.branch-instructions
> 3.469e+12 ± 4% -17% 2.893e+12 ± 6% perf-stat.instructions
> 1.24 ± 4% -19% 1.00 perf-stat.ipc
> 3.18 ± 8% -62% 1.19 ± 19% perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>
>
>
> perf-stat.cache-references
>
> 8e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 7e+09 ++ O O |
> | O |
> 6e+09 ++ O |
> | O |
> 5e+09 ++O O O O O O O
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 4e+09 ++ O O O |
> | |
> 3e+09 ++ |
> | *. *.. *. |
> 2e+09 *+ + *.. .*. + *. .*. + *. .*.*. .*.*. .*..* |
> | * *.*.*.*.* * * * *.*. *.* * |
> 1e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.user_time
>
> 30 ++--*-------------------*-----------*----------------------------------+
> 29 *+* *.*.*.*..*.*.*.* *.*.*.*. *.*. *. .*. .*.*.* |
> | *. .. * *.*. |
> 28 ++ * |
> 27 ++ |
> | |
> 26 ++ |
> 25 ++ |
> 24 ++ |
> | |
> 23 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 22 O+O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> | O O O O
> 21 ++ O |
> 20 ++---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.system_time
>
> 358 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 357 O+O O O O O O O O
> | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 356 ++ O O O O O O |
> 355 ++ |
> | |
> 354 ++ |
> 353 ++ |
> 352 ++ |
> | |
> 351 ++ *. .*. .*. |
> 350 *+*. .* * .*.*.*. .* *.*. .* + * *..* *.*.* |
> | *. + + + .*. * + .. * + .* |
> 349 ++ * * * *. |
> 348 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>
> 2.3e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 2.2e+06 ++*.*. .*. .*..*. .*.*. .*.*. .*.*..*.*.*.*.* |
> * *.* * * *.*.* *.*. .*.* |
> 2.1e+06 ++ * |
> 2e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.9e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.8e+06 ++ |
> 1.7e+06 ++ O O O O O O |
> O O O O O O O O O O |
> 1.6e+06 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> | O O |
> 1.5e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad sample
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [fs/locks] 9d21d181d0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -14.1% regression
Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:41:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1496317284.2845.4.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170601020556.GE16905@yexl-desktop>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9750 bytes --]
On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -14.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2ec4eed77b656793 ("fs/locks: Set fl_nspid at file_lock allocation")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Benjamin-Coddington/fs-locks-Alloc-file_lock-where-practical/20170527-050700
>
>
Ouch, that's a rather nasty performance hit. In hindsight, maybe we
shouldn't move those off the stack after all? Heck, if it's that
significant, maybe we should move the F_SETLK callers to allocate these
on the stack as well?
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz with 4G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> test: lock1
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>
> In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.9% regression |
> > test machine | 16 threads Intel(R) Atom(R) CPU 3958 @ 2.00GHz with 64G memory |
> > test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> > | mode=process |
> > | nr_task=100% |
> > | test=lock1 |
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> To reproduce:
>
> git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git
> cd lkp-tests
> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>
> testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/lock1-performance/lkp-ivb-d04
>
> 09790e423b32fba4 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2e
> ---------------- --------------------------
> 0.51 19% 0.60 ± 7% will-it-scale.scalability
> 2462089 -14% 2114597 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> 2195246 -26% 1631578 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 350 356 will-it-scale.time.system_time
> 28.89 -24% 22.06 will-it-scale.time.user_time
> 32.78 31.97 turbostat.PkgWatt
> 15.58 -5% 14.80 turbostat.CorWatt
> 19284 18803 vmstat.system.in
> 32208 -4% 31052 vmstat.system.cs
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.avg.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.max.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.sum.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1.911e+09 ± 6% 163% 5.022e+09 ± 5% perf-stat.cache-references
> 27.58 ± 12% 17% 32.14 ± 7% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 9881103 -4% 9527607 perf-stat.context-switches
> 9.567e+11 ± 9% -14% 8.181e+11 ± 9% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
> 6.85e+11 ± 4% -16% 5.761e+11 ± 6% perf-stat.branch-instructions
> 3.469e+12 ± 4% -17% 2.893e+12 ± 6% perf-stat.instructions
> 1.24 ± 4% -19% 1.00 perf-stat.ipc
> 3.18 ± 8% -62% 1.19 ± 19% perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>
>
>
> perf-stat.cache-references
>
> 8e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 7e+09 ++ O O |
> | O |
> 6e+09 ++ O |
> | O |
> 5e+09 ++O O O O O O O
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 4e+09 ++ O O O |
> | |
> 3e+09 ++ |
> | *. *.. *. |
> 2e+09 *+ + *.. .*. + *. .*. + *. .*.*. .*.*. .*..* |
> | * *.*.*.*.* * * * *.*. *.* * |
> 1e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.user_time
>
> 30 ++--*-------------------*-----------*----------------------------------+
> 29 *+* *.*.*.*..*.*.*.* *.*.*.*. *.*. *. .*. .*.*.* |
> | *. .. * *.*. |
> 28 ++ * |
> 27 ++ |
> | |
> 26 ++ |
> 25 ++ |
> 24 ++ |
> | |
> 23 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 22 O+O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> | O O O O
> 21 ++ O |
> 20 ++---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.system_time
>
> 358 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 357 O+O O O O O O O O
> | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 356 ++ O O O O O O |
> 355 ++ |
> | |
> 354 ++ |
> 353 ++ |
> 352 ++ |
> | |
> 351 ++ *. .*. .*. |
> 350 *+*. .* * .*.*.*. .* *.*. .* + * *..* *.*.* |
> | *. + + + .*. * + .. * + .* |
> 349 ++ * * * *. |
> 348 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>
> 2.3e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 2.2e+06 ++*.*. .*. .*..*. .*.*. .*.*. .*.*..*.*.*.*.* |
> * *.* * * *.*.* *.*. .*.* |
> 2.1e+06 ++ * |
> 2e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.9e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.8e+06 ++ |
> 1.7e+06 ++ O O O O O O |
> O O O O O O O O O O |
> 1.6e+06 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> | O O |
> 1.5e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad sample
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-01 11:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-26 20:14 [PATCH 0/3] Fixups for l_pid Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-26 20:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] fs/locks: Alloc file_lock where practical Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-27 9:56 ` Jeff Layton
2017-05-28 6:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-26 20:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] fs/locks: Set fl_nspid at file_lock allocation Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-27 10:00 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-01 2:05 ` [lkp-robot] [fs/locks] 9d21d181d0: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -14.1% regression kernel test robot
2017-06-01 11:41 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2017-06-01 11:41 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-01 11:49 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-01 11:49 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-01 12:59 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-01 12:59 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-01 15:14 ` J. Bruce Fields
2017-06-01 15:48 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-01 15:48 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-05 18:34 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-05 18:34 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-05 22:02 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-05 22:02 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-06 13:00 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-06 13:00 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-06 13:15 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-06 13:15 ` Jeff Layton
2017-06-06 13:21 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-06-06 13:21 ` Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-26 20:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] fs/locks: Use fs-specific l_pid for remote locks Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-26 20:26 ` [PATCH 0/3] Fixups for l_pid Benjamin Coddington
2017-05-27 10:11 ` Jeff Layton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1496317284.2845.4.camel@redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=bcodding@redhat.com \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.