* [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression
@ 2025-11-25 14:46 kernel test robot
2025-11-26 9:49 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: kernel test robot @ 2025-11-25 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kefeng Wang
Cc: oe-lkp, lkp, Andrew Morton, David Hildenbrand, Sidhartha Kumar,
Lorenzo Stoakes, Baolin Wang, Barry Song, Dev Jain, Lance Yang,
Liam Howlett, Ryan Roberts, Zi Yan, linux-mm, oliver.sang
Hello,
kernel test robot noticed a 46.9% regression of stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec on:
commit: f66e2727ddfcbbe3dbb459e809824f721a914464 ("mm: huge_memory: use folio_can_map_prot_numa() for pmd folio")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
[still regression on linux-next/master d724c6f85e80a23ed46b7ebc6e38b527c09d64f5]
testcase: stress-ng
config: x86_64-rhel-9.4
compiler: gcc-14
test machine: 192 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) 6740E CPU @ 2.4GHz (Sierra Forest) with 256G memory
parameters:
nr_threads: 100%
testtime: 60s
test: rawsock
cpufreq_governor: performance
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202511252236.33b899b3-lkp@intel.com
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20251125/202511252236.33b899b3-lkp@intel.com
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/testtime:
gcc-14/performance/x86_64-rhel-9.4/100%/debian-13-x86_64-20250902.cgz/lkp-srf-2sp3/rawsock/stress-ng/60s
commit:
ca43034cdb ("mm: mprotect: convert to folio_can_map_prot_numa()")
f66e2727dd ("mm: huge_memory: use folio_can_map_prot_numa() for pmd folio")
ca43034cdb224131 f66e2727ddfcbbe3dbb459e8098
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
1569273 ± 5% -10.8% 1399094 ± 6% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
5.156e+08 ± 9% -27.6% 3.735e+08 ± 5% cpuidle..time
376420 ± 5% -56.5% 163676 ± 5% cpuidle..usage
256283 ± 29% -64.8% 90309 ± 60% numa-meminfo.node1.Mapped
774069 ± 15% -58.8% 319020 ± 47% numa-meminfo.node1.Shmem
89117 ± 17% -62.6% 33337 ± 50% perf-c2c.DRAM.remote
78134 ± 16% -62.4% 29353 ± 50% perf-c2c.HITM.remote
78.45 ± 33% -100.0% 0.01 ±141% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_isolated_anon
65056 ± 29% -64.4% 23147 ± 59% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_mapped
197053 ± 15% -59.0% 80737 ± 47% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_shmem
1568725 ± 5% -10.3% 1407667 ± 6% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
1608874 ± 2% -30.7% 1115409 ± 6% meminfo.Active
1608858 ± 2% -30.7% 1115393 ± 6% meminfo.Active(anon)
4549412 -10.4% 4076550 meminfo.Cached
368664 ± 8% -51.2% 179972 ± 36% meminfo.Mapped
870107 ± 4% -54.4% 397179 ± 19% meminfo.Shmem
0.70 ± 4% -0.7 0.00 mpstat.cpu.all.iowait%
0.24 +0.0 0.28 ± 3% mpstat.cpu.all.irq%
72.55 +13.7 86.20 mpstat.cpu.all.soft%
22.29 -11.8 10.51 ± 2% mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
0.88 ± 3% -0.5 0.39 ± 3% mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
46.33 ± 14% -78.8% 9.83 ± 21% mpstat.max_utilization.seconds
12.47 ± 5% +41.6% 17.65 ± 5% perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown]
12.47 ± 5% +41.6% 17.65 ± 5% perf-sched.total_sch_delay.average.ms
59.96 ± 4% +40.2% 84.05 ± 5% perf-sched.total_wait_and_delay.average.ms
47.50 ± 3% +39.8% 66.40 ± 5% perf-sched.total_wait_time.average.ms
59.96 ± 4% +40.2% 84.05 ± 5% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.avg.ms.[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown]
47.50 ± 3% +39.8% 66.40 ± 5% perf-sched.wait_time.avg.ms.[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown].[unknown]
4.18 ± 9% -1.2 2.97 ± 3% turbostat.C1%
4.16 ± 10% -28.8% 2.96 ± 3% turbostat.CPU%c1
0.15 -20.0% 0.12 turbostat.IPC
30643618 ± 6% -33.8% 20273146 ± 3% turbostat.IRQ
9235121 ± 11% -53.5% 4290976 ± 8% turbostat.NMI
20.28 -5.2% 19.23 turbostat.RAMWatt
2.80 ± 2% -84.0% 0.45 ± 12% stress-ng.rawsock.MB_recv'd_per_sec
1.263e+09 ± 2% -46.9% 6.705e+08 ± 4% stress-ng.rawsock.ops
21068817 ± 2% -46.9% 11184756 ± 4% stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec
615583 -27.5% 446065 ± 9% stress-ng.time.involuntary_context_switches
168521 -52.0% 80837 stress-ng.time.minor_page_faults
4458 -53.7% 2062 ± 3% stress-ng.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
2605 -54.0% 1199 ± 3% stress-ng.time.system_time
73.90 ± 2% -46.3% 39.67 ± 4% stress-ng.time.user_time
106021 ± 2% -81.2% 19900 ± 7% stress-ng.time.voluntary_context_switches
404635 ± 3% -31.0% 279044 ± 7% proc-vmstat.nr_active_anon
185837 -2.9% 180494 proc-vmstat.nr_anon_pages
1139738 -10.6% 1019325 proc-vmstat.nr_file_pages
153.81 ± 11% -100.0% 0.01 ±152% proc-vmstat.nr_isolated_anon
92592 ± 8% -51.0% 45333 ± 34% proc-vmstat.nr_mapped
219912 ± 5% -54.8% 99481 ± 19% proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
38659 -2.0% 37872 proc-vmstat.nr_slab_reclaimable
148828 +4.3% 155195 proc-vmstat.nr_slab_unreclaimable
404635 ± 3% -31.0% 279044 ± 7% proc-vmstat.nr_zone_active_anon
21570 ± 18% -61.8% 8245 ± 47% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults
16919 ± 21% -56.8% 7311 ± 51% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
963.83 ± 7% -100.0% 0.00 proc-vmstat.numa_huge_pte_updates
111261 ± 3% -99.2% 909.67 ± 20% proc-vmstat.numa_pages_migrated
526245 ± 7% -97.7% 12122 ± 45% proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates
535799 -22.9% 413207 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgfault
111261 ± 3% -99.2% 909.67 ± 20% proc-vmstat.pgmigrate_success
21679 ± 7% -9.8% 19545 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgreuse
1799808 -57.1% 772136 ± 9% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.avg_vruntime.avg
2946020 ± 8% +251.1% 10342560 ± 10% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.avg_vruntime.max
1006872 ± 8% -87.4% 126618 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.avg_vruntime.min
356117 ± 4% +262.9% 1292236 ± 17% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.avg_vruntime.stddev
64.34 ± 33% +59.2% 102.44 ± 8% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
1799808 -57.1% 772137 ± 9% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.avg
2946020 ± 8% +251.1% 10342560 ± 10% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.max
1006872 ± 8% -87.4% 126618 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
356117 ± 4% +262.9% 1292236 ± 17% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.stddev
1008 ± 8% +15.7% 1166 sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.avg
3848 ± 74% -67.7% 1243 ± 13% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.max
8.67 ±213% +2513.5% 226.50 ± 32% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.min
431.22 ± 40% -66.2% 145.58 ± 13% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.stddev
808.82 ± 11% -52.0% 387.95 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est.avg
1337827 ± 3% -26.5% 983709 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.avg
197988 ± 29% -97.1% 5680 ± 16% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.min
483058 ± 8% +27.5% 616103 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.stddev
1721 ± 3% +243.6% 5914 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.stddev
1029615 -42.2% 594917 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.avg
1448914 ± 2% -11.7% 1279232 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.max
931867 -46.3% 500000 sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.min
99448 ± 18% +54.7% 153845 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.stddev
4446 -17.7% 3660 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.avg
59305 ± 8% +23.6% 73291 ± 17% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
2177 ± 3% -47.3% 1147 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.min
5185 ± 8% +26.1% 6537 ± 13% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
-99.50 -70.2% -29.67 sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.min
30.41 ± 6% -54.1% 13.96 ± 30% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
0.18 ± 24% +59.1% 0.29 ± 4% sched_debug.dl_rq:.dl_nr_running.avg
2.23 -30.8% 1.54 ± 2% perf-stat.i.MPKI
1.973e+10 -11.8% 1.74e+10 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
0.59 -0.2 0.41 ± 3% perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
1.171e+08 -38.6% 71869487 ± 3% perf-stat.i.branch-misses
11.83 ± 2% -5.6 6.24 ± 2% perf-stat.i.cache-miss-rate%
2.013e+08 ± 2% -43.3% 1.14e+08 ± 3% perf-stat.i.cache-misses
1.706e+09 +10.7% 1.889e+09 perf-stat.i.cache-references
17575 -32.4% 11879 ± 9% perf-stat.i.context-switches
6.69 +22.6% 8.21 perf-stat.i.cpi
2421 ± 3% -76.6% 567.43 ± 6% perf-stat.i.cpu-migrations
3014 ± 2% +82.0% 5485 ± 4% perf-stat.i.cycles-between-cache-misses
9.022e+10 -18.1% 7.391e+10 perf-stat.i.instructions
0.15 -17.9% 0.12 perf-stat.i.ipc
7721 ± 4% -34.5% 5055 ± 5% perf-stat.i.minor-faults
7724 ± 4% -34.5% 5055 ± 5% perf-stat.i.page-faults
2.22 -30.4% 1.55 ± 2% perf-stat.overall.MPKI
0.59 -0.2 0.41 ± 3% perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
11.72 ± 2% -5.7 6.05 ± 3% perf-stat.overall.cache-miss-rate%
6.69 +22.9% 8.21 perf-stat.overall.cpi
3010 ± 2% +76.8% 5321 ± 3% perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
0.15 -18.6% 0.12 perf-stat.overall.ipc
1.911e+10 -11.6% 1.689e+10 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
1.129e+08 -38.0% 69941891 ± 3% perf-stat.ps.branch-misses
1.939e+08 -42.8% 1.109e+08 ± 3% perf-stat.ps.cache-misses
1.655e+09 +10.7% 1.833e+09 perf-stat.ps.cache-references
16423 -31.2% 11302 ± 10% perf-stat.ps.context-switches
2129 -77.4% 481.20 ± 4% perf-stat.ps.cpu-migrations
8.731e+10 -17.8% 7.177e+10 perf-stat.ps.instructions
6585 ± 4% -34.4% 4320 ± 5% perf-stat.ps.minor-faults
6587 ± 4% -34.4% 4320 ± 5% perf-stat.ps.page-faults
5.348e+12 -19.0% 4.332e+12 perf-stat.total.instructions
21.08 ± 3% -13.2 7.92 ± 9% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu.ip_local_deliver_finish.ip_local_deliver
20.80 ± 3% -13.1 7.75 ± 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu.ip_local_deliver_finish
18.41 ± 3% -11.8 6.61 ± 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__sock_queue_rcv_skb.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu
13.19 ± 5% -9.1 4.08 ± 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__sock_queue_rcv_skb.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input
10.51 ± 6% -7.5 2.98 ± 12% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__sock_queue_rcv_skb.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv
7.69 ± 12% -7.5 0.20 ±223% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__put_partials.kmem_cache_free.raw_recvmsg.inet_recvmsg.sock_recvmsg
8.67 ± 10% -7.4 1.30 ± 47% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_free.raw_recvmsg.inet_recvmsg.sock_recvmsg.__sys_recvfrom
7.46 ± 12% -7.3 0.15 ±223% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__put_partials.kmem_cache_free.raw_recvmsg.inet_recvmsg
7.30 ± 12% -7.2 0.13 ±223% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.__put_partials.kmem_cache_free.raw_recvmsg
8.98 ± 4% -6.8 2.19 ± 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.skb_clone.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu.ip_local_deliver_finish.ip_local_deliver
5.22 ± 8% -4.7 0.56 ± 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_alloc_noprof.skb_clone.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu.ip_local_deliver_finish
3.48 ± 2% -2.0 1.46 ± 15% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__copy_skb_header.skb_clone.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu.ip_local_deliver_finish
2.30 -1.3 1.03 ± 9% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sock_def_readable.__sock_queue_rcv_skb.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input
2.36 -1.2 1.12 ± 8% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.sk_filter_trim_cap.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason.raw_rcv.raw_v4_input.ip_protocol_deliver_rcu
29.52 ± 3% -21.5 7.99 ± 18% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave
25.26 ± 3% -19.8 5.47 ± 18% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
21.08 ± 3% -13.2 7.92 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.raw_rcv
20.81 ± 3% -13.1 7.75 ± 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_queue_rcv_skb_reason
18.42 ± 3% -11.8 6.62 ± 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sock_queue_rcv_skb
9.07 ± 10% -8.4 0.66 ± 51% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__put_partials
10.74 ± 8% -7.9 2.88 ± 39% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_free
8.99 ± 4% -6.8 2.19 ± 13% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.skb_clone
5.25 ± 8% -4.6 0.61 ± 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_alloc_noprof
5.09 ± 8% -4.5 0.58 ± 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.___slab_alloc
4.58 ± 9% -4.4 0.23 ± 22% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.get_partial_node
3.48 ± 2% -2.0 1.46 ± 15% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__copy_skb_header
2.30 -1.3 1.03 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_def_readable
2.36 -1.2 1.12 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sk_filter_trim_cap
0.11 ± 4% -0.0 0.06 ± 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ipv4_pktinfo_prepare
0.12 ± 4% -0.0 0.07 ± 8% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.dst_release
0.13 +0.0 0.16 ± 5% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.update_process_times
0.15 ± 2% +0.0 0.19 ± 5% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tick_nohz_handler
0.15 ± 2% +0.0 0.19 ± 3% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__hrtimer_run_queues
0.18 ± 3% +0.0 0.23 ± 6% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.skb_defer_free_flush
0.21 ± 2% +0.1 0.27 ± 4% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.hrtimer_interrupt
0.22 +0.1 0.27 ± 4% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
0.13 ± 8% +0.1 0.19 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kmalloc_reserve
0.19 ± 5% +0.1 0.27 ± 18% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__ip_select_ident
0.00 +0.1 0.10 ± 51% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sk_skb_reason_drop
0.00 +0.1 0.11 ± 67% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.inet_sock_destruct
0.00 +0.1 0.11 ± 66% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sk_destruct
0.23 ± 4% +0.2 0.38 ± 3% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.run_ksoftirqd
0.23 ± 4% +0.2 0.38 ± 3% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.smpboot_thread_fn
0.23 ± 3% +0.2 0.43 ± 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.kthread
0.23 ± 3% +0.2 0.43 ± 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork
0.23 ± 3% +0.2 0.43 ± 7% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ret_from_fork_asm
0.24 ± 3% +0.2 0.44 ± 18% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.dst_destroy
0.00 +0.2 0.21 ± 77% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__mmput
0.00 +0.2 0.21 ± 77% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.exit_mmap
0.00 +0.2 0.22 ± 76% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.exit_mm
0.00 +0.2 0.22 ± 80% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__irq_exit_rcu
0.00 +0.2 0.22 ± 76% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_exit_group
0.00 +0.2 0.22 ± 75% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_exit
0.00 +0.2 0.22 ± 75% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_group_exit
0.00 +0.2 0.23 ± 73% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.x64_sys_call
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.acpi_idle_do_entry
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.acpi_idle_enter
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.acpi_safe_halt
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.cpuidle_enter
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.cpuidle_enter_state
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 79% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.pv_native_safe_halt
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 78% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.cpuidle_idle_call
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 78% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.start_secondary
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 77% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.common_startup_64
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 77% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.cpu_startup_entry
0.00 +0.2 0.24 ± 77% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_idle
0.23 ± 2% +0.3 0.49 ± 37% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
0.25 +0.3 0.52 ± 36% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
0.24 ± 4% +0.4 0.60 ± 29% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_do_batch
0.24 ± 4% +0.4 0.60 ± 29% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_core
0.86 ± 3% +0.7 1.52 ± 41% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__slab_free
25.25 ± 3% -19.8 5.46 ± 18% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
3.47 ± 2% -2.0 1.45 ± 15% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__copy_skb_header
4.26 -1.7 2.53 ± 18% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave
2.87 -1.4 1.48 ± 8% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__sock_queue_rcv_skb
2.29 -1.3 1.03 ± 9% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.sock_def_readable
2.34 -1.2 1.12 ± 8% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.sk_filter_trim_cap
0.46 ± 2% -0.3 0.16 ± 16% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_partial_node
0.50 ± 2% -0.2 0.34 ± 4% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.___slab_alloc
0.31 -0.1 0.16 ± 11% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_alloc_noprof
0.28 -0.1 0.16 ± 8% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.skb_clone
0.10 ± 4% -0.0 0.06 ± 9% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.dst_release
0.06 +0.0 0.08 ± 9% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.kmem_cache_alloc_node_noprof
0.12 ± 3% +0.0 0.15 ± 7% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.skb_defer_free_flush
0.00 +0.1 0.05 ± 7% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.ktime_get
44.51 +26.8 71.33 ± 8% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.raw_v4_input
Disclaimer:
Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
design or configuration may affect actual performance.
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression
2025-11-25 14:46 [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression kernel test robot
@ 2025-11-26 9:49 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-12-01 20:56 ` Sid Kumar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) @ 2025-11-26 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kernel test robot, Kefeng Wang
Cc: oe-lkp, lkp, Andrew Morton, Sidhartha Kumar, Lorenzo Stoakes,
Baolin Wang, Barry Song, Dev Jain, Lance Yang, Liam Howlett,
Ryan Roberts, Zi Yan, linux-mm
On 11/25/25 15:46, kernel test robot wrote:
>
>
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed a 46.9% regression of stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec on:
>
>
> commit: f66e2727ddfcbbe3dbb459e809824f721a914464 ("mm: huge_memory: use folio_can_map_prot_numa() for pmd folio")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
Unexpected, but maybe simple a symptom of doing the right thing?
"which skips unsuitable folio, i.e. zone device, shared folios (KSM,
CoW), non-movable dma pinned, dirty file folio and folios that already
have the expected node affinity."
I suspect skipping shared folios or dirty file folios might make the
difference. The benchmark results would be misleading in that case: as
we shouldn't have migrated these pages in the first place beforehand.
--
Cheers
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression
2025-11-26 9:49 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
@ 2025-12-01 20:56 ` Sid Kumar
2025-12-01 21:13 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sid Kumar @ 2025-12-01 20:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat), kernel test robot, Kefeng Wang
Cc: oe-lkp, lkp, Andrew Morton, Lorenzo Stoakes, Baolin Wang,
Barry Song, Dev Jain, Lance Yang, Liam Howlett, Ryan Roberts,
Zi Yan, linux-mm
On 11/26/25 3:49 AM, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
> On 11/25/25 15:46, kernel test robot wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> kernel test robot noticed a 46.9% regression of
>> stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec on:
>>
>>
>> commit: f66e2727ddfcbbe3dbb459e809824f721a914464 ("mm: huge_memory:
>> use folio_can_map_prot_numa() for pmd folio")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>
> Unexpected, but maybe simple a symptom of doing the right thing?
>
> "which skips unsuitable folio, i.e. zone device, shared folios (KSM,
> CoW), non-movable dma pinned, dirty file folio and folios that already
> have the expected node affinity."
>
> I suspect skipping shared folios or dirty file folios might make the
> difference. The benchmark results would be misleading in that case: as
> we shouldn't have migrated these pages in the first place beforehand.
Reproducing the benchmark and adding prints to show which condition the
return false occurs in shows that:
/* Also skip shared copy-on-write folios */
if (is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags) &&
folio_maybe_mapped_shared(folio)) {
printk("false at is_Cow_mapping\n");
return false;
}
virtme-ng% dmesg | grep is_Cow_mapping | wc -l
25302
is the condition that now fails and leads to the regression.
Thanks,
Sid
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression
2025-12-01 20:56 ` Sid Kumar
@ 2025-12-01 21:13 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) @ 2025-12-01 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sid Kumar, kernel test robot, Kefeng Wang
Cc: oe-lkp, lkp, Andrew Morton, Lorenzo Stoakes, Baolin Wang,
Barry Song, Dev Jain, Lance Yang, Liam Howlett, Ryan Roberts,
Zi Yan, linux-mm
On 12/1/25 21:56, Sid Kumar wrote:
>
> On 11/26/25 3:49 AM, David Hildenbrand (Red Hat) wrote:
>> On 11/25/25 15:46, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> kernel test robot noticed a 46.9% regression of
>>> stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec on:
>>>
>>>
>>> commit: f66e2727ddfcbbe3dbb459e809824f721a914464 ("mm: huge_memory:
>>> use folio_can_map_prot_numa() for pmd folio")
>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>
>> Unexpected, but maybe simple a symptom of doing the right thing?
>>
>> "which skips unsuitable folio, i.e. zone device, shared folios (KSM,
>> CoW), non-movable dma pinned, dirty file folio and folios that already
>> have the expected node affinity."
>>
>> I suspect skipping shared folios or dirty file folios might make the
>> difference. The benchmark results would be misleading in that case: as
>> we shouldn't have migrated these pages in the first place beforehand.
>
>
> Reproducing the benchmark and adding prints to show which condition the
> return false occurs in shows that:
>
> /* Also skip shared copy-on-write folios */
> if (is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags) &&
> folio_maybe_mapped_shared(folio)) {
> printk("false at is_Cow_mapping\n");
> return false;
> }
>
> virtme-ng% dmesg | grep is_Cow_mapping | wc -l
> 25302
>
> is the condition that now fails and leads to the regression.
Okay, as I thought, it's rather a "doing the right thing". At
least doing the same thing we do during PTE faults :)
This check dates back to:
commit 859d4adc3415a64ccb8b0c50dc4e3a888dcb5805
Author: Henry Willard <henry.willard@oracle.com>
Date: Wed Jan 31 16:21:07 2018 -0800
mm: numa: do not trap faults on shared data section pages.
Workloads consisting of a large number of processes running the same
program with a very large shared data segment may experience performance
problems when numa balancing attempts to migrate the shared cow pages.
This manifests itself with many processes or tasks in
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state waiting for the shared pages to be migrated.
The program listed below simulates the conditions with these results
when run with 288 processes on a 144 core/8 socket machine.
Average throughput Average throughput Average throughput
with numa_balancing=0 with numa_balancing=1 with numa_balancing=1
without the patch with the patch
--------------------- --------------------- ---------------------
2118782 2021534 2107979
Complex production environments show less variability and fewer poorly
performing outliers accompanied with a smaller number of processes
waiting on NUMA page migration with this patch applied. In some cases,
%iowait drops from 16%-26% to 0.
I think the reproducer would actually not care about anonymous folios, but
not sure if that would make a difference for the benchmark here.
--
Cheers
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-12-01 21:13 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-11-25 14:46 [linux-next:master] [mm] f66e2727dd: stress-ng.rawsock.ops_per_sec 46.9% regression kernel test robot
2025-11-26 9:49 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-12-01 20:56 ` Sid Kumar
2025-12-01 21:13 ` David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
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.