From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
network dev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev,
"linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com,
fengwei.yin@intel.com, Ying Xu <yinxu@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:57:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220623185730.25b88096@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_eQUmb942vC+bG+NRzM1ki1LiCydEDR1AezZ35Jvsdfnw@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:50:07 -0400 Xin Long wrote:
> From the perf data, we can see __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() is the one
> using CPU the most more than before, and mem_cgroup APIs are also
> called in this function. It means the mem cgroup must be enabled in
> the test env, which may explain why I couldn't reproduce it.
>
> The Commit 4890b686f4 ("net: keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as small as
> possible") uses sk_mem_reclaim(checking reclaimable >= PAGE_SIZE) to
> reclaim the memory, which is *more frequent* to call
> __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() than before (checking reclaimable >=
> SK_RECLAIM_THRESHOLD). It might be cheap when
> mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled is false, but I'm not sure if it's still
> cheap when mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled is true.
>
> I think SCTP netperf could trigger this, as the CPU is the bottleneck
> for SCTP netperf testing, which is more sensitive to the extra
> function calls than TCP.
>
> Can we re-run this testing without mem cgroup enabled?
FWIW I defer to Eric, thanks a lot for double checking the report
and digging in!
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:57:30 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220623185730.25b88096@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_eQUmb942vC+bG+NRzM1ki1LiCydEDR1AezZ35Jvsdfnw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1087 bytes --]
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:50:07 -0400 Xin Long wrote:
> From the perf data, we can see __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() is the one
> using CPU the most more than before, and mem_cgroup APIs are also
> called in this function. It means the mem cgroup must be enabled in
> the test env, which may explain why I couldn't reproduce it.
>
> The Commit 4890b686f4 ("net: keep sk->sk_forward_alloc as small as
> possible") uses sk_mem_reclaim(checking reclaimable >= PAGE_SIZE) to
> reclaim the memory, which is *more frequent* to call
> __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() than before (checking reclaimable >=
> SK_RECLAIM_THRESHOLD). It might be cheap when
> mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled is false, but I'm not sure if it's still
> cheap when mem_cgroup_sockets_enabled is true.
>
> I think SCTP netperf could trigger this, as the CPU is the bottleneck
> for SCTP netperf testing, which is more sensitive to the extra
> function calls than TCP.
>
> Can we re-run this testing without mem cgroup enabled?
FWIW I defer to Eric, thanks a lot for double checking the report
and digging in!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-24 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 70+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-19 15:04 [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression kernel test robot
2022-06-19 15:04 ` kernel test robot
2022-06-23 0:28 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-06-23 0:28 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-06-23 3:08 ` Xin Long
2022-06-23 3:08 ` Xin Long
2022-06-23 22:50 ` Xin Long
2022-06-23 22:50 ` Xin Long
2022-06-24 1:57 ` Jakub Kicinski [this message]
2022-06-24 1:57 ` Jakub Kicinski
2022-06-24 4:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 4:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 4:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 4:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 5:13 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 5:13 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 5:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 5:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 6:00 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 6:00 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 6:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 6:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-24 6:34 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-24 6:34 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-24 7:06 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 7:06 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-24 14:43 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-24 14:43 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-25 2:36 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-25 2:36 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 2:38 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 2:38 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 8:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 8:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 12:34 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 12:34 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 14:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 14:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 14:48 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 14:48 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 16:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 16:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 16:48 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 16:48 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 17:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 17:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-28 1:46 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-06-28 1:46 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-06-28 3:49 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-28 3:49 ` Feng Tang
2022-07-01 15:47 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-07-01 15:47 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-07-03 10:43 ` Feng Tang
2022-07-03 10:43 ` Feng Tang
2022-07-03 22:55 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-03 22:55 ` Roman Gushchin
2022-07-05 5:03 ` Feng Tang
2022-07-05 5:03 ` Feng Tang
2022-08-16 5:52 ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-16 5:52 ` Oliver Sang
2022-08-16 15:55 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-08-16 15:55 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 14:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 14:52 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 14:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 14:56 ` Eric Dumazet
2022-06-27 15:12 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 15:12 ` Feng Tang
2022-06-27 16:25 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-06-27 16:25 ` Shakeel Butt
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=20220623185730.25b88096@kernel.org \
--to=kuba@kernel.org \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=marcelo.leitner@gmail.com \
--cc=mptcp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=soheil@google.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=yinxu@redhat.com \
--cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
/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.