From: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2016 12:51:36 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160606095136.GA79951@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160606022724.GA26227@yexl-desktop>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2148 bytes --]
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:27:24AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -6.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
>
> commit 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7 ("mm: make faultaround produce old ptes")
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: unixbench
> on test machine: lituya: 16 threads Haswell High-end Desktop (i7-5960X 3.0G) with 16G memory
> with following parameters: cpufreq_governor=performance/nr_task=1/test=shell8
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/1/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lituya/shell8/unixbench
>
> commit:
> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc9e3f2a0aa60e590fedf728c5
> 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7
>
> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692de
> ---------------- --------------------------
> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
> | | |
> 3:4 -75% :4 kmsg.DHCP/BOOTP:Reply_not_for_us,op[#]xid[#]
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 14321 ± 0% -6.3% 13425 ± 0% unixbench.score
> 1996897 ± 0% -6.1% 1874635 ± 0% unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 1.721e+08 ± 0% -6.2% 1.613e+08 ± 0% unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
> 758.65 ± 0% -3.0% 735.86 ± 0% unixbench.time.system_time
> 387.66 ± 0% +5.4% 408.49 ± 0% unixbench.time.user_time
> 5950278 ± 0% -6.2% 5583456 ± 0% unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
That's weird.
I don't understand why the change would reduce number or minor faults.
It should stay the same on x86-64. Rise of user_time is puzzling too.
Hm. Is reproducible? Across reboot?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
Vinayak Menon <vinmenon@codeaurora.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:51:36 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160606095136.GA79951@black.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160606022724.GA26227@yexl-desktop>
On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 10:27:24AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -6.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
>
> commit 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7 ("mm: make faultaround produce old ptes")
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: unixbench
> on test machine: lituya: 16 threads Haswell High-end Desktop (i7-5960X 3.0G) with 16G memory
> with following parameters: cpufreq_governor=performance/nr_task=1/test=shell8
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/1/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lituya/shell8/unixbench
>
> commit:
> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc9e3f2a0aa60e590fedf728c5
> 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692deecdeed74ae7ec7
>
> 4b50bcc7eda4d3cc 5c0a85fad949212b3e059692de
> ---------------- --------------------------
> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
> | | |
> 3:4 -75% :4 kmsg.DHCP/BOOTP:Reply_not_for_us,op[#]xid[#]
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 14321 ± 0% -6.3% 13425 ± 0% unixbench.score
> 1996897 ± 0% -6.1% 1874635 ± 0% unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 1.721e+08 ± 0% -6.2% 1.613e+08 ± 0% unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
> 758.65 ± 0% -3.0% 735.86 ± 0% unixbench.time.system_time
> 387.66 ± 0% +5.4% 408.49 ± 0% unixbench.time.user_time
> 5950278 ± 0% -6.2% 5583456 ± 0% unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches
That's weird.
I don't understand why the change would reduce number or minor faults.
It should stay the same on x86-64. Rise of user_time is puzzling too.
Hm. Is reproducible? Across reboot?
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-06 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-06 2:27 [mm] 5c0a85fad9: unixbench.score -6.3% regression kernel test robot
2016-06-06 2:27 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-06-06 9:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov [this message]
2016-06-06 9:51 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-08 7:21 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-08 7:21 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-08 8:41 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-08 8:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-08 8:58 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-08 8:58 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-12 0:49 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-12 0:49 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-12 1:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-12 1:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Linus Torvalds
2016-06-13 9:02 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-13 9:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-14 13:38 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-14 13:38 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Minchan Kim
2016-06-15 23:42 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-15 23:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-13 12:52 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-13 12:52 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-14 6:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2016-06-14 6:11 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Linus Torvalds
2016-06-14 8:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-14 8:26 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-14 16:07 ` Rik van Riel
2016-06-14 16:07 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Rik van Riel
2016-06-14 14:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-06-14 14:03 ` Christian Borntraeger
2016-06-14 8:57 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-14 8:57 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Minchan Kim
2016-06-14 14:34 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-14 14:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Kirill A. Shutemov
2016-06-15 23:52 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-15 23:52 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-16 0:13 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-16 0:13 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Minchan Kim
2016-06-16 22:27 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-16 22:27 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-17 5:41 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-17 5:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Minchan Kim
2016-06-17 19:26 ` Huang, Ying
2016-06-17 19:26 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-06-20 0:06 ` Minchan Kim
2016-06-20 0:06 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Minchan Kim
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=20160606095136.GA79951@black.fi.intel.com \
--to=kirill.shutemov@linux.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.