From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:23:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160107112301.GE4062@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8760z7fl60.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1886 bytes --]
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:20:55AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8 ("mm/vmstat: fix overflow in mod_zone_page_state()")
>
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
>
> commit:
> cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
> 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
>
> cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 2733943 ± 0% -8.5% 2502129 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 3410 ± 0% -2.0% 3343 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
> 340.08 ± 0% +19.7% 406.99 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
> 69882822 ± 2% -24.3% 52926191 ± 5% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
> 340.08 ± 0% +19.7% 406.99 ± 0% time.user_time
> 491.25 ± 6% -17.7% 404.25 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_alloc_batch
> 2799 ± 20% -36.6% 1776 ± 0% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
> 630.00 ±140% +244.4% 2169 ± 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_anon
Hmm... this is odd. I did review all callers of mod_zone_page_state() and
couldn't find anything obvious that would go wrong after the int -> long
change.
I also tried the "pread1_threads" test case from
https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale.git
However the results seem to vary a lot after a reboot(!), at least on s390.
So I'm not sure if this is really a regression.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To: kernel test robot <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: lkp@01.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:23:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160107112301.GE4062@osiris> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8760z7fl60.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:20:55AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> commit 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8 ("mm/vmstat: fix overflow in mod_zone_page_state()")
>
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
>
> commit:
> cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
> 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
>
> cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 2733943 ± 0% -8.5% 2502129 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 3410 ± 0% -2.0% 3343 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
> 340.08 ± 0% +19.7% 406.99 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
> 69882822 ± 2% -24.3% 52926191 ± 5% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
> 340.08 ± 0% +19.7% 406.99 ± 0% time.user_time
> 491.25 ± 6% -17.7% 404.25 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_alloc_batch
> 2799 ± 20% -36.6% 1776 ± 0% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
> 630.00 ±140% +244.4% 2169 ± 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_anon
Hmm... this is odd. I did review all callers of mod_zone_page_state() and
couldn't find anything obvious that would go wrong after the int -> long
change.
I also tried the "pread1_threads" test case from
https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale.git
However the results seem to vary a lot after a reboot(!), at least on s390.
So I'm not sure if this is really a regression.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-07 11:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-06 3:20 [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops kernel test robot
2016-01-06 3:20 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-01-07 11:23 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2016-01-07 11:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-01-08 5:24 ` Huang, Ying
2016-01-08 5:24 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-08 11:13 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-01-08 11:13 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Heiko Carstens
2016-01-21 6:47 ` Huang, Ying
2016-01-21 6:47 ` [lkp] " Huang, Ying
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=20160107112301.GE4062@osiris \
--to=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.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.