From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [cgroup] a0f9ec1f181: -4.3% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 14:00:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140515060026.GA12710@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140515045517.GC3825@htj.dyndns.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2846 bytes --]
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:55:17AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:50:39PM +0800, Jet Chen wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git review-kill-tree_mutex
> > commit a0f9ec1f181534694cb5bf40b7b56515b8cabef9 ("cgroup: use cgroup_kn_lock_live() in other cgroup kernfs methods")
> >
> > Test case : lkp-nex05/will-it-scale/writeseek
> >
> > 2074b6e38668e62 a0f9ec1f181534694cb5bf40b
> > --------------- -------------------------
2074b6e38668e62 is the base of comparison. So "-4.3% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops"
in the below line means a0f9ec1f18 has lower will-it-scale throughput.
> > 1027273 ~ 0% -4.3% 982732 ~ 0% TOTAL will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > 136 ~ 3% -43.1% 77 ~43% TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_dirtied
> > 0.51 ~ 3% +98.0% 1.01 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.shmem_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_aio_write.generic_file_aio_write.do_sync_write
> > 1078 ~ 9% -16.3% 903 ~11% TOTAL numa-meminfo.node0.Unevictable
> > 269 ~ 9% -16.2% 225 ~11% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node0.nr_unevictable
> > 1.64 ~ 1% -14.3% 1.41 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_write_begin.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_aio_write
> > 1.62 ~ 2% +14.1% 1.84 ~ 1% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.lseek64
The perf-profile.cpu-cycles.* lines are from "perf record/report".
The last line shows that lseek64() takes 1.62% CPU cycles for
commit 2074b6e38668e62 and that percent increased by +14.1% on
a0f9ec1f181. One of the raw perf record output is
1.84% writeseek_proce libc-2.17.so [.] lseek64
|
--- lseek64
There are 5 runs and 1.62% is the average value.
> I have no idea how to read the above. Which direction is plus and
> which is minus? Are they counting cpu cycles? Which files is the
> test seeking?
It's tmpfs files. Because the will-it-scale test case is mean to
measure scalability of syscalls. We do not use HDD/SSD etc. storage
devices when running it.
The will-it-scale/writeseek test code is
char *testcase_description = "Separate file seek+write";
void testcase(unsigned long long *iterations)
{
char buf[BUFLEN];
char tmpfile[] = "/tmp/willitscale.XXXXXX";
int fd = mkstemp(tmpfile);
memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
assert(fd >= 0);
unlink(tmpfile);
while (1) {
lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
assert(write(fd, buf, BUFLEN) == BUFLEN);
(*iterations)++;
}
}
Thanks,
Fengguang
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Jet Chen <jet.chen@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [cgroup] a0f9ec1f181: -4.3% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 14:00:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140515060026.GA12710@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140515045517.GC3825@htj.dyndns.org>
Hi Tejun,
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:55:17AM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:50:39PM +0800, Jet Chen wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >
> > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tj/cgroup.git review-kill-tree_mutex
> > commit a0f9ec1f181534694cb5bf40b7b56515b8cabef9 ("cgroup: use cgroup_kn_lock_live() in other cgroup kernfs methods")
> >
> > Test case : lkp-nex05/will-it-scale/writeseek
> >
> > 2074b6e38668e62 a0f9ec1f181534694cb5bf40b
> > --------------- -------------------------
2074b6e38668e62 is the base of comparison. So "-4.3% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops"
in the below line means a0f9ec1f18 has lower will-it-scale throughput.
> > 1027273 ~ 0% -4.3% 982732 ~ 0% TOTAL will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > 136 ~ 3% -43.1% 77 ~43% TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_dirtied
> > 0.51 ~ 3% +98.0% 1.01 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.shmem_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_aio_write.generic_file_aio_write.do_sync_write
> > 1078 ~ 9% -16.3% 903 ~11% TOTAL numa-meminfo.node0.Unevictable
> > 269 ~ 9% -16.2% 225 ~11% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node0.nr_unevictable
> > 1.64 ~ 1% -14.3% 1.41 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_write_begin.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_aio_write
> > 1.62 ~ 2% +14.1% 1.84 ~ 1% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.lseek64
The perf-profile.cpu-cycles.* lines are from "perf record/report".
The last line shows that lseek64() takes 1.62% CPU cycles for
commit 2074b6e38668e62 and that percent increased by +14.1% on
a0f9ec1f181. One of the raw perf record output is
1.84% writeseek_proce libc-2.17.so [.] lseek64
|
--- lseek64
There are 5 runs and 1.62% is the average value.
> I have no idea how to read the above. Which direction is plus and
> which is minus? Are they counting cpu cycles? Which files is the
> test seeking?
It's tmpfs files. Because the will-it-scale test case is mean to
measure scalability of syscalls. We do not use HDD/SSD etc. storage
devices when running it.
The will-it-scale/writeseek test code is
char *testcase_description = "Separate file seek+write";
void testcase(unsigned long long *iterations)
{
char buf[BUFLEN];
char tmpfile[] = "/tmp/willitscale.XXXXXX";
int fd = mkstemp(tmpfile);
memset(buf, 0, sizeof(buf));
assert(fd >= 0);
unlink(tmpfile);
while (1) {
lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
assert(write(fd, buf, BUFLEN) == BUFLEN);
(*iterations)++;
}
}
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-15 6:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-15 4:50 [cgroup] a0f9ec1f181: -4.3% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops Jet Chen
2014-05-15 4:50 ` Jet Chen
2014-05-15 4:55 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-15 4:55 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-15 6:00 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2014-05-15 6:00 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-05-15 6:14 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-15 6:14 ` Tejun Heo
2014-05-15 7:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-15 7:11 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-05-15 8:16 ` Fengguang Wu
2014-05-15 8:16 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20140515060026.GA12710@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/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.