* [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec
@ 2014-08-19 4:41 ` Fengguang Wu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lkp
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 921 bytes --]
Hi Mel,
We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit
f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair
zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered").
testcase: ivb44/dbench/100%
bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26
--------------- -------------------------
25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec
6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M
18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W
9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time
1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches
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,
Fengguang
[-- Attachment #2: reproduce.ksh --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3584 bytes --]
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu12/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu13/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu14/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu15/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu16/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu17/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu18/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu19/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu20/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu21/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu22/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu23/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu24/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu25/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu26/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu27/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu28/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu29/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu30/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu31/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu32/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu33/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu34/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu35/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu36/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu37/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu38/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu39/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu40/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu41/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu42/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu43/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu44/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu45/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu46/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu47/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_governor
echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_governor
dbench 48 -c /usr/share/dbench/client.txt
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 4:41 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 4:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mel Gorman; +Cc: LKML, lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 898 bytes --] Hi Mel, We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 --------------- ------------------------- 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches 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, Fengguang [-- Attachment #2: reproduce --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 3584 bytes --] echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu10/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu11/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu12/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu13/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu14/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu15/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu16/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu17/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu18/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu19/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu20/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu21/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu22/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu23/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu24/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu25/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu26/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu27/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu28/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu29/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu30/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu31/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu32/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu33/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu34/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu35/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu36/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu37/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu38/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu39/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu40/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu41/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu42/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu43/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu44/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu45/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu46/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu47/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu5/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu6/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu7/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu8/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu9/cpufreq/scaling_governor dbench 48 -c /usr/share/dbench/client.txt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 2014-08-19 4:41 ` Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Mel, > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > --------------- ------------------------- > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > 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. > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this machine. Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fengguang Wu; +Cc: LKML, lkp On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > Hi Mel, > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > --------------- ------------------------- > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > 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. > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this machine. Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 2014-08-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1611 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Hi Mel, > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > --------------- ------------------------- > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > 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. > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > machine. The ivb44's hardware configuration is model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP nr_cpu: 48 memory: 64G And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much remains the same. Thanks, Fengguang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mel Gorman; +Cc: LKML, lkp On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > Hi Mel, > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > --------------- ------------------------- > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > 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. > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > machine. The ivb44's hardware configuration is model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP nr_cpu: 48 memory: 64G And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much remains the same. Thanks, Fengguang ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 16:12 ` Mel Gorman -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1972 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > machine. > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > nr_cpu: 48 > memory: 64G > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > > > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? > > Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much > remains the same. Then how did directmap2m change? The sum of the direct maps should correspond to the amount of physical memory and this patch has nothing to do with any memory initialisation paths that might affect this. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 16:12 ` Mel Gorman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fengguang Wu; +Cc: LKML, lkp On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > machine. > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > nr_cpu: 48 > memory: 64G > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > > > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? > > Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much > remains the same. Then how did directmap2m change? The sum of the direct maps should correspond to the amount of physical memory and this patch has nothing to do with any memory initialisation paths that might affect this. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 2014-08-19 16:12 ` Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 17:36 ` Fengguang Wu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3013 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:12:58PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > > machine. > > > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > > nr_cpu: 48 > > memory: 64G > > > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > > > > > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? > > > > Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much > > remains the same. > > Then how did directmap2m change? The sum of the direct maps should > correspond to the amount of physical memory and this patch has nothing > to do with any memory initialisation paths that might affect this. Good question. Not sure for the moment, but it looks that even the multiple boots for the same kernel bb0b6dffa2ccfbd have different DirectMap2M. And it only happen for kernel bb0b6dffa2ccfbd. f7b5d64794 remains stable for all boots. bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 --------------- ------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | / 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M Looking at the concrete numbers for each boot, the DirectMap2M changes each time. "meminfo.DirectMap2M": [ 7182336, 7190528, 7178240, 6131712, 7188480 ], The MemTotal does remain stable for this kernel: "meminfo.MemTotal": [ 65869268, 65869268, 65869268, 65869268, 65869268 ], Attached are the full stats for the 2 kernels. Thanks, Fengguang [-- Attachment #2: f7b5d6-matrix.json --] [-- Type: application/json, Size: 227423 bytes --] [-- Attachment #3: bb0b6d-matrix.json --] [-- Type: application/json, Size: 229755 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 17:36 ` Fengguang Wu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mel Gorman; +Cc: LKML, lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2930 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 05:12:58PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > > machine. > > > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > > nr_cpu: 48 > > memory: 64G > > > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > > > > > Did the amount of memory in the machine change between two tests? > > > > Nope. They are back-to-back test runs, so the environment pretty much > > remains the same. > > Then how did directmap2m change? The sum of the direct maps should > correspond to the amount of physical memory and this patch has nothing > to do with any memory initialisation paths that might affect this. Good question. Not sure for the moment, but it looks that even the multiple boots for the same kernel bb0b6dffa2ccfbd have different DirectMap2M. And it only happen for kernel bb0b6dffa2ccfbd. f7b5d64794 remains stable for all boots. bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 --------------- ------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | / 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M Looking at the concrete numbers for each boot, the DirectMap2M changes each time. "meminfo.DirectMap2M": [ 7182336, 7190528, 7178240, 6131712, 7188480 ], The MemTotal does remain stable for this kernel: "meminfo.MemTotal": [ 65869268, 65869268, 65869268, 65869268, 65869268 ], Attached are the full stats for the 2 kernels. Thanks, Fengguang [-- Attachment #2: f7b5d6-matrix.json --] [-- Type: application/json, Size: 240807 bytes --] [-- Attachment #3: bb0b6d-matrix.json --] [-- Type: application/json, Size: 243268 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu @ 2014-08-19 19:11 ` Mel Gorman -1 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2065 bytes --] On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > machine. > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > nr_cpu: 48 > memory: 64G > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > Ok, it's a NUMA machine. I expect in this case that prior to the patch more local memory would have been used on node 0 due to the fair zone allocation policy skipping remote nodes. The patch corrects the behaviour of zonelist but the downside is more remote accesses for processes running on node 0. The behaviour is correct although not necessarily desirable from a performance point of view. Users should boot with numa_zonelist_order=node if it's a problem. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec @ 2014-08-19 19:11 ` Mel Gorman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Mel Gorman @ 2014-08-19 19:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fengguang Wu; +Cc: LKML, lkp On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 11:43:51PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:34:28PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:41:34PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > Hi Mel, > > > > > > We noticed a minor dbench throughput regression on commit > > > f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26c16b3a793c1ac49 ("mm: page_alloc: abort fair > > > zone allocation policy when remotes nodes are encountered"). > > > > > > testcase: ivb44/dbench/100% > > > > > > bb0b6dffa2ccfbd f7b5d647946aae1647bf5cd26 > > > --------------- ------------------------- > > > 25692 ± 0% -3.0% 24913 ± 0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec > > > 6974259 ± 6% -12.1% 6127616 ± 0% meminfo.DirectMap2M > > > 18.43 ± 0% -4.6% 17.59 ± 0% turbostat.RAM_W > > > 9302 ± 0% -3.6% 8965 ± 1% time.user_time > > > 1425791 ± 1% -2.0% 1396598 ± 0% time.involuntary_context_switches > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > DirectMap2M changing is a major surprise and doesn't make sense for this > > machine. > > The ivb44's hardware configuration is > > model: Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP > nr_cpu: 48 > memory: 64G > > And note that this is an in-memory dbench run, which is why > dbench.throughput-MB/sec is so high. > Ok, it's a NUMA machine. I expect in this case that prior to the patch more local memory would have been used on node 0 due to the fair zone allocation policy skipping remote nodes. The patch corrects the behaviour of zonelist but the downside is more remote accesses for processes running on node 0. The behaviour is correct although not necessarily desirable from a performance point of view. Users should boot with numa_zonelist_order=node if it's a problem. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-08-19 19:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2014-08-19 4:41 [mm] f7b5d647946: -3.0% dbench.throughput-MB/sec Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 4:41 ` Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman 2014-08-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 15:43 ` Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 16:12 ` Mel Gorman 2014-08-19 16:12 ` Mel Gorman 2014-08-19 17:36 ` Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 17:36 ` Fengguang Wu 2014-08-19 19:11 ` Mel Gorman 2014-08-19 19:11 ` Mel Gorman
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.