From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2016 10:10:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160808021031.GA17837@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_cRe5vjpaxuJAy7MNhA13BKhQRvOFuVufkxX_XCJa_3qg@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4417 bytes --]
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:53:38PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> >> It doesn't make much sense to me. the codes I added cannot be
> >> triggered without enable any pr policies. and I also did the tests in
> >
> > It seems these pr policies has to be turned on by user space, i.e.
> > netperf in this case?
> >
> > I checked netperf's source code, it doesn't seem set any option
> > related to SCTP PR POLICY but I'm new to network code so I could be
> > wrong or missing something.
> >
> >> my local environment, the result looks normal to me compare to
> >> prior version.
> >
> > Can you share your number?
> > We run netperf like this:
> > netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> > The full log of the run is attached for your reference.
>
> Now I also changed to linux-net.git
>
> commit 96b585267f552d4b6a28ea8bd75e5ed03deb6e71
> [root(a)hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# uname -r
> 4.7.0.new
> [root(a)hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 --
> -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB
>
> 212992 212992 10240 300.00 11814.56 4.65 4.65 0.775 0.774
>
>
> commit f959fb442c35f4b61fea341401b8463dd0a1b959 (just before the buggie patch)
I'm testing on Linus' master, can we all use that please?
> [root(a)localhost ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m
> 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB
>
> 212992 212992 10240 300.00 9454.90 5.22 5.22 1.086 1.085
>
>
> I did tests on physical machine.
> did you do it on guest ?
The test is done on a ivy-bridge desktop with 8G memory:
# cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz
# total memory : 8058152 kB
>
> >
> >>
> >> Recently the sctp performance is not stable, as during these patches,
> >> netperf cannot get the result, but return ENOTCONN. which may
> >> also affect the testing. anyway we've fixed the -ENOTCONN issue
> >> already in the latest version.
> >
> > I tested commit 96b585267f55, which is Linus' git tree HEAD on 08/03, I
> > guess the fix you mentioned should already be in there? But
> > unfortunately, the throughput of netperf is still at low number(we did
> > the test 5 times):
> > $ cat */netperf.json
> > {
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2470.6974999999998
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2486.7675
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2478.945
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2429.465
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2476.9150000000004
> > ]
> >
> > Considering what you have said that the patch shouldn't make a
> > difference, the performance drop is really confusing. Any idea what
> > could be the cause? Thanks.
> Now I saw your tests result against the new kernel
>
> Could you do the same test on the kernel before the problematic commit ?
Yes, the throughput of its parent commit is higer enough to trigger the
automatic bisect and then we send out the report.
Throughput of its parent commit 826d253d57b1("sctp: add SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS
on sctp sockopt"):
Average:
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": 3923.84375,
$ cat */netperf.json
{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3869.25375
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3952.58875
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3936.89625
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3936.63625
]
}
Feel free to let me know if you need any more information or you want me
to do more tests on other commits/machines, thanks.
Regards,
Aaron
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
lkp@01.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:10:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160808021031.GA17837@aaronlu.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_cRe5vjpaxuJAy7MNhA13BKhQRvOFuVufkxX_XCJa_3qg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:53:38PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> >> It doesn't make much sense to me. the codes I added cannot be
> >> triggered without enable any pr policies. and I also did the tests in
> >
> > It seems these pr policies has to be turned on by user space, i.e.
> > netperf in this case?
> >
> > I checked netperf's source code, it doesn't seem set any option
> > related to SCTP PR POLICY but I'm new to network code so I could be
> > wrong or missing something.
> >
> >> my local environment, the result looks normal to me compare to
> >> prior version.
> >
> > Can you share your number?
> > We run netperf like this:
> > netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> > The full log of the run is attached for your reference.
>
> Now I also changed to linux-net.git
>
> commit 96b585267f552d4b6a28ea8bd75e5ed03deb6e71
> [root@hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# uname -r
> 4.7.0.new
> [root@hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 --
> -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB
>
> 212992 212992 10240 300.00 11814.56 4.65 4.65 0.775 0.774
>
>
> commit f959fb442c35f4b61fea341401b8463dd0a1b959 (just before the buggie patch)
I'm testing on Linus' master, can we all use that please?
> [root@localhost ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m
> 10K -H 127.0.0.1
> SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to
> 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET
> Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand
> Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv
> Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote
> bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB
>
> 212992 212992 10240 300.00 9454.90 5.22 5.22 1.086 1.085
>
>
> I did tests on physical machine.
> did you do it on guest ?
The test is done on a ivy-bridge desktop with 8G memory:
# cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz
# total memory : 8058152 kB
>
> >
> >>
> >> Recently the sctp performance is not stable, as during these patches,
> >> netperf cannot get the result, but return ENOTCONN. which may
> >> also affect the testing. anyway we've fixed the -ENOTCONN issue
> >> already in the latest version.
> >
> > I tested commit 96b585267f55, which is Linus' git tree HEAD on 08/03, I
> > guess the fix you mentioned should already be in there? But
> > unfortunately, the throughput of netperf is still at low number(we did
> > the test 5 times):
> > $ cat */netperf.json
> > {
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2470.6974999999998
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2486.7675
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2478.945
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2429.465
> > ]
> > }{
> > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
> > 2476.9150000000004
> > ]
> >
> > Considering what you have said that the patch shouldn't make a
> > difference, the performance drop is really confusing. Any idea what
> > could be the cause? Thanks.
> Now I saw your tests result against the new kernel
>
> Could you do the same test on the kernel before the problematic commit ?
Yes, the throughput of its parent commit is higer enough to trigger the
automatic bisect and then we send out the report.
Throughput of its parent commit 826d253d57b1("sctp: add SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS
on sctp sockopt"):
Average:
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": 3923.84375,
$ cat */netperf.json
{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3869.25375
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3952.58875
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3936.89625
]
}{
"netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
3936.63625
]
}
Feel free to let me know if you need any more information or you want me
to do more tests on other commits/machines, thanks.
Regards,
Aaron
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-08 2:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-27 1:54 [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression kernel test robot
2016-07-27 1:54 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-07-28 7:01 ` Xin Long
2016-07-28 7:01 ` [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-05 3:31 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-05 3:31 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-05 11:53 ` Xin Long
2016-08-05 11:53 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-08 2:10 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2016-08-08 2:10 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 2:38 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 2:38 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 8:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-16 8:30 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:30 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:51 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:51 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 9:56 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 9:56 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:04 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:04 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:41 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 6:14 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:14 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:37 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:37 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:35 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 7:35 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 7:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:42 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:53 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:53 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:02 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:48 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:48 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:58 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:58 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-17 9:20 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 9:20 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 18:06 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 18:06 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-18 3:21 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-18 3:21 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-18 12:45 ` Xin Long
2016-08-18 12:45 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-08-19 5:29 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 5:29 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 7:19 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-19 7:19 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-19 7:24 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 7:24 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-22 21:44 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-22 21:44 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-23 9:19 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-23 9:19 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-09-30 7:05 ` Aaron Lu
2016-09-30 7:05 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-10-03 2:32 ` Xin Long
2016-10-03 2:32 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
2016-10-09 7:41 ` Aaron Lu
2016-10-09 7:41 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 18:34 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 18:34 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Xin Long
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=20160808021031.GA17837@aaronlu.sh.intel.com \
--to=aaron.lu@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.