From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sched/core] 9edfbfed3f5: +88.2% hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:31:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150209083120.GL5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423461513.5968.56.camel@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4710 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:58:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core
> commit 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f0c175995a02950 ("sched/core: Rework rq->clock update skips")
>
>
> testbox/testcase/testparams: xps2/hackbench/performance-1600%-process-socket
>
> cebde6d681aa45f9 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 41965851 ± 5% +5.6% 44307403 ± 1% hackbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
> 388 ± 39% -58.6% 160 ± 10% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 12957 ± 14% -60.5% 5117 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_avg
> 30505 ± 14% -57.7% 12905 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_avg
> 2790 ± 24% -65.4% 964 ± 32% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 2915 ± 23% -62.2% 1101 ± 29% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% time.involuntary_context_switches
> 1474 ± 28% -61.7% 565 ± 43% sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 11830 ± 15% +63.0% 19285 ± 11% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_goidle
> 19319 ± 29% +91.1% 36913 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#3.sched_goidle
> 5899 ± 31% -35.6% 3801 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 5999 ± 30% -34.5% 3929 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 37884 ± 13% -33.5% 25207 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_avg
> 229547 ± 5% +47.9% 339519 ± 5% cpuidle.C1-NHM.usage
> 35712 ± 3% +31.7% 47036 ± 9% cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
> 5010 ± 9% -29.0% 3556 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 5139 ± 9% -28.2% 3690 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 49568 ± 6% +24.8% 61867 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.sched_goidle
> 26369 ± 35% -42.0% 15289 ± 29% cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
> 18 ± 16% +36.5% 25 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_running
> 1.41 ± 12% -19.3% 1.14 ± 13% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.sock_wfree.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb
> 25 ± 15% +28.7% 32 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu#3.nr_running
> 1.63 ± 11% -18.0% 1.34 ± 12% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg
> 0.57 ± 8% +9.6% 0.62 ± 5% turbostat.CPU%c1
> 148 ± 11% -16.7% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.load
> 109 ± 6% +17.1% 128 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[0]
> 2.41 ± 8% -13.3% 2.09 ± 11% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read
> 147 ± 12% -16.4% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.load
> 111 ± 5% +15.4% 129 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[2]
> 110 ± 5% +14.9% 127 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.runnable_load_avg
> 112 ± 5% +14.5% 128 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[3]
> 113 ± 5% +13.2% 128 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[4]
> 789953 ± 2% -10.8% 704528 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#3.avg_idle
> 15471 ± 5% -7.7% 14278 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.curr->pid
> 2675106 ± 10% +16.2% 3109411 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_switches
> 2675140 ± 10% +16.2% 3109440 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_count
> 155201 ± 5% +14.6% 177901 ± 3% softirqs.RCU
> 8.64 ± 6% -9.6% 7.82 ± 5% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read.sock_aio_read
> 2658351 ± 11% +13.7% 3021564 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.sched_count
> 2658326 ± 11% +13.7% 3021539 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.nr_switches
> 71443 ± 5% +9.9% 78486 ± 0% vmstat.system.cs
> 8209 ± 5% +7.3% 8805 ± 0% vmstat.system.in
>
OK, so the interesting number is total runtime; I cannot find it.
Therefore I cannot say what if anything changed. This is just a bunch of
random numbers afaict.
> To reproduce:
>
> apt-get install ruby ruby-oj
Mostly likely, you requiring ruby just means I will not be reproducing.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, LKP ML <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [sched/core] 9edfbfed3f5: +88.2% hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:31:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150209083120.GL5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1423461513.5968.56.camel@intel.com>
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:58:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core
> commit 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f0c175995a02950 ("sched/core: Rework rq->clock update skips")
>
>
> testbox/testcase/testparams: xps2/hackbench/performance-1600%-process-socket
>
> cebde6d681aa45f9 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 41965851 ± 5% +5.6% 44307403 ± 1% hackbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
> 388 ± 39% -58.6% 160 ± 10% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 12957 ± 14% -60.5% 5117 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_avg
> 30505 ± 14% -57.7% 12905 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_avg
> 2790 ± 24% -65.4% 964 ± 32% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 2915 ± 23% -62.2% 1101 ± 29% sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% time.involuntary_context_switches
> 1474 ± 28% -61.7% 565 ± 43% sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 11830 ± 15% +63.0% 19285 ± 11% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_goidle
> 19319 ± 29% +91.1% 36913 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#3.sched_goidle
> 5899 ± 31% -35.6% 3801 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 5999 ± 30% -34.5% 3929 ± 11% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 37884 ± 13% -33.5% 25207 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_avg
> 229547 ± 5% +47.9% 339519 ± 5% cpuidle.C1-NHM.usage
> 35712 ± 3% +31.7% 47036 ± 9% cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
> 5010 ± 9% -29.0% 3556 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.blocked_load_avg
> 5139 ± 9% -28.2% 3690 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.tg_load_contrib
> 49568 ± 6% +24.8% 61867 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.sched_goidle
> 26369 ± 35% -42.0% 15289 ± 29% cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
> 18 ± 16% +36.5% 25 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_running
> 1.41 ± 12% -19.3% 1.14 ± 13% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.sock_wfree.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb
> 25 ± 15% +28.7% 32 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu#3.nr_running
> 1.63 ± 11% -18.0% 1.34 ± 12% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg
> 0.57 ± 8% +9.6% 0.62 ± 5% turbostat.CPU%c1
> 148 ± 11% -16.7% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.load
> 109 ± 6% +17.1% 128 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[0]
> 2.41 ± 8% -13.3% 2.09 ± 11% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read
> 147 ± 12% -16.4% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.load
> 111 ± 5% +15.4% 129 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[2]
> 110 ± 5% +14.9% 127 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.runnable_load_avg
> 112 ± 5% +14.5% 128 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[3]
> 113 ± 5% +13.2% 128 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[4]
> 789953 ± 2% -10.8% 704528 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#3.avg_idle
> 15471 ± 5% -7.7% 14278 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.curr->pid
> 2675106 ± 10% +16.2% 3109411 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_switches
> 2675140 ± 10% +16.2% 3109440 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_count
> 155201 ± 5% +14.6% 177901 ± 3% softirqs.RCU
> 8.64 ± 6% -9.6% 7.82 ± 5% perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read.sock_aio_read
> 2658351 ± 11% +13.7% 3021564 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.sched_count
> 2658326 ± 11% +13.7% 3021539 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.nr_switches
> 71443 ± 5% +9.9% 78486 ± 0% vmstat.system.cs
> 8209 ± 5% +7.3% 8805 ± 0% vmstat.system.in
>
OK, so the interesting number is total runtime; I cannot find it.
Therefore I cannot say what if anything changed. This is just a bunch of
random numbers afaict.
> To reproduce:
>
> apt-get install ruby ruby-oj
Mostly likely, you requiring ruby just means I will not be reproducing.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-09 8:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-09 5:58 [sched/core] 9edfbfed3f5: +88.2% hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches Huang Ying
2015-02-09 5:58 ` [LKP] " Huang Ying
2015-02-09 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2015-02-09 8:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-09 8:47 ` huang ying
2015-02-09 9:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-09 9:27 ` [LKP] " Peter Zijlstra
2015-02-10 0:24 ` huang ying
2015-02-10 7:26 ` Markus Pargmann
2015-02-10 7:26 ` [LKP] " Markus Pargmann
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=20150209083120.GL5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--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.