All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [x86/mce] 7bb39313cd: netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:17:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210119131759.GL27433@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210119121505.GA111354@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1878 bytes --]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 08:15:05PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:27:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I bet that the results vary depending on the type of CPU, and also on
> > > the kernel address-space layout, which of course also varies based on
> > > the Kconfig options.  Let's see how the maintainers would like to proceed.
> > 
> > So I ran the "reproduce" script in the original mail on a KBL box here
> > with the .config tailored for it:
> > 
> > cpu family      : 6
> > model           : 158
> > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz
> > stepping        : 12
> > microcode       : 0xd6
> 
> I will also try to find a similar KBL in 0day to run the job. This
> -4.5% comes from a CascadeLake AP which is 4 nodes, 96C/192T.
> 
> > and I get mixed results. But I'd need to know how exactly they generate
> > the metrics "netperf.Throughput_total_tps" and "netperf.Throughput_tps"
> > 
> > Feng?
> 
> I have to admit I'm just a dumb user of 0day :) I'll leave this question
> to Philip/Oliver/Rong who are from 0day team.
> 
> I assumed you've cloned the lkp-tests.git, and seems one Ruby file
> https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/blob/master/stats/netperf is used to
> process the output of the netperf.

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < rc2.log
Throughput_tps: 12759.701875000002
Throughput_total_tps: 204155.23000000004
workload: 61246569.000000015

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < with-holdout.log
Throughput_tps: 12863.416875
Throughput_total_tps: 205814.67
workload: 61744401.00000001

So this definitely depends on the .config because in my case, *with* the
holdout patch it is better vs plain 5.11-rc2.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
	kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	Jonathan Lemon <bsd@fb.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
	ying.huang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com
Subject: Re: [x86/mce]  7bb39313cd:  netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:17:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210119131759.GL27433@zn.tnic> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210119121505.GA111354@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 08:15:05PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:27:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I bet that the results vary depending on the type of CPU, and also on
> > > the kernel address-space layout, which of course also varies based on
> > > the Kconfig options.  Let's see how the maintainers would like to proceed.
> > 
> > So I ran the "reproduce" script in the original mail on a KBL box here
> > with the .config tailored for it:
> > 
> > cpu family      : 6
> > model           : 158
> > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz
> > stepping        : 12
> > microcode       : 0xd6
> 
> I will also try to find a similar KBL in 0day to run the job. This
> -4.5% comes from a CascadeLake AP which is 4 nodes, 96C/192T.
> 
> > and I get mixed results. But I'd need to know how exactly they generate
> > the metrics "netperf.Throughput_total_tps" and "netperf.Throughput_tps"
> > 
> > Feng?
> 
> I have to admit I'm just a dumb user of 0day :) I'll leave this question
> to Philip/Oliver/Rong who are from 0day team.
> 
> I assumed you've cloned the lkp-tests.git, and seems one Ruby file
> https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/blob/master/stats/netperf is used to
> process the output of the netperf.

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < rc2.log
Throughput_tps: 12759.701875000002
Throughput_total_tps: 204155.23000000004
workload: 61246569.000000015

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < with-holdout.log
Throughput_tps: 12863.416875
Throughput_total_tps: 205814.67
workload: 61744401.00000001

So this definitely depends on the .config because in my case, *with* the
holdout patch it is better vs plain 5.11-rc2.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette

  reply	other threads:[~2021-01-19 13:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20210116035251.GB29609@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
2021-01-16 15:34 ` [x86/mce] 7bb39313cd: netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-16 15:34   ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-16 16:09   ` Feng Tang
2021-01-16 16:09     ` Feng Tang
2021-01-19  4:27     ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-19  4:27       ` Paul E. McKenney
2021-01-19 10:02       ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-19 10:02         ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-19 12:15         ` Feng Tang
2021-01-19 12:15           ` Feng Tang
2021-01-19 13:17           ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2021-01-19 13:17             ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-19 15:09             ` Feng Tang
2021-01-19 15:09               ` Feng Tang
2021-01-19 15:33               ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-19 15:33                 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-20  5:48                 ` Feng Tang
2021-01-20  5:48                   ` Feng Tang
2021-01-12 14:21 kernel test robot
2021-01-12 14:21 ` kernel test robot
2021-01-12 14:14 ` Borislav Petkov
2021-01-12 14:14   ` Borislav Petkov

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=20210119131759.GL27433@zn.tnic \
    --to=bp@alien8.de \
    --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.