From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [driver core] 570d020012: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -12.2% regression
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:19:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190219121904.GA24103@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190219005945.GA16734@richard>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2934 bytes --]
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:59:45AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:54:42PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >Greeting,
> >
> >FYI, we noticed a -12.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
> >
> >
> >commit: 570d0200123fb4f809aa2f6226e93a458d664d70 ("driver core: move device->knode_class to device_private")
> >https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >
>
> This is interesting.
>
> I didn't expect the move of this field will impact the performance.
>
> The reason is struct device is a hotter memory than device->device_private?
>
> >in testcase: will-it-scale
> >on test machine: 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory
> >with following parameters:
> >
> > nr_task: 100%
> > mode: thread
> > test: unlink2
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> >
> >test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> >test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
> >
> >In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
> >
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -29.9% regression |
> >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory |
> >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> >| | mode=thread |
> >| | nr_task=100% |
> >| | test=signal1 |
Ok, I'm going to blame your testing system, or something here, and not
the above patch.
All this test does is call raise(3). That does not touch the driver
core at all.
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -16.5% regression |
> >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory |
> >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> >| | mode=thread |
> >| | nr_task=100% |
> >| | test=open1 |
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Same here, open1 just calls open/close a lot. No driver core
interaction at all there either.
So are you _sure_ this is the offending patch?
thanks,
greg k-h
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [driver core] 570d020012: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -12.2% regression
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2019 13:19:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190219121904.GA24103@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190219005945.GA16734@richard>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:59:45AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:54:42PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> >Greeting,
> >
> >FYI, we noticed a -12.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
> >
> >
> >commit: 570d0200123fb4f809aa2f6226e93a458d664d70 ("driver core: move device->knode_class to device_private")
> >https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >
>
> This is interesting.
>
> I didn't expect the move of this field will impact the performance.
>
> The reason is struct device is a hotter memory than device->device_private?
>
> >in testcase: will-it-scale
> >on test machine: 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory
> >with following parameters:
> >
> > nr_task: 100%
> > mode: thread
> > test: unlink2
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> >
> >test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> >test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
> >
> >In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
> >
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -29.9% regression |
> >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory |
> >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> >| | mode=thread |
> >| | nr_task=100% |
> >| | test=signal1 |
Ok, I'm going to blame your testing system, or something here, and not
the above patch.
All this test does is call raise(3). That does not touch the driver
core at all.
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -16.5% regression |
> >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory |
> >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> >| | mode=thread |
> >| | nr_task=100% |
> >| | test=open1 |
> >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Same here, open1 just calls open/close a lot. No driver core
interaction at all there either.
So are you _sure_ this is the offending patch?
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-19 12:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-18 7:54 [driver core] 570d020012: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -12.2% regression kernel test robot
2019-02-18 7:54 ` [LKP] " kernel test robot
2019-02-19 0:59 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-19 12:19 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman [this message]
2019-02-19 12:19 ` [LKP] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 3:10 ` kernel test robot
2019-02-21 3:10 ` [LKP] " kernel test robot
2019-02-21 3:46 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-21 3:46 ` [LKP] " Wei Yang
2019-02-21 4:46 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 4:46 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 6:02 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-21 6:02 ` [LKP] " Wei Yang
2019-02-21 6:29 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 6:29 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 5:46 ` kernel test robot
2019-02-21 5:46 ` [LKP] " kernel test robot
2019-02-21 7:10 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 7:10 ` [LKP] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 7:18 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 7:18 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 7:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 7:35 ` [LKP] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 8:30 ` Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 8:30 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2019-02-21 8:39 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-21 9:12 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 9:12 ` [LKP] " Greg Kroah-Hartman
2019-02-21 21:40 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-21 7:53 ` Wei Yang
2019-02-21 7:53 ` [LKP] " Wei Yang
2019-02-21 22:31 ` Wei Yang
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=20190219121904.GA24103@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.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.