* [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps [not found] <53d1f486.t70cWJ/Ilm6Y3o5/%fengguang.wu@intel.com> @ 2014-07-25 6:45 ` Aaron Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12258 bytes --] FYI, we noticed the below changes on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1050 ~ 4% -91.4% 90 ~23% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1050 ~ 4% -91.4% 90 ~23% TOTAL cpuidle.POLL.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 53785432 ~ 4% -77.8% 11927078 ~26% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 53785432 ~ 4% -77.8% 11927078 ~26% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 5674 ~30% +1060.9% 65880 ~ 3% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 5674 ~30% +1060.9% 65880 ~ 3% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 851366 ~ 8% -74.4% 218296 ~24% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 851366 ~ 8% -74.4% 218296 ~24% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8045967 ~28% -81.9% 1454789 ~14% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 6021385 ~41% -70.5% 1773953 ~18% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 14067352 ~34% -77.0% 3228743 ~16% TOTAL cpuidle.C1-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 78355 ~ 2% -77.0% 18022 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 78355 ~ 2% -77.0% 18022 ~11% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 0.16 ~11% -72.5% 0.04 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 0.16 ~11% -72.5% 0.04 ~11% TOTAL turbostat.%c3 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 237 ~ 9% +169.4% 640 ~ 2% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 197 ~11% +177.3% 546 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 435 ~10% +173.0% 1187 ~ 3% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 32364085 ~ 6% -62.3% 12189943 ~16% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 32364085 ~ 6% -62.3% 12189943 ~16% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 10134346 ~ 1% -55.0% 4563107 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 10134346 ~ 1% -55.0% 4563107 ~10% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 82079 ~ 6% +176.9% 227278 ~23% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 82079 ~ 6% +176.9% 227278 ~23% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 659858 ~ 5% -49.7% 332152 ~19% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 659858 ~ 5% -49.7% 332152 ~19% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8031 ~20% +67.1% 13418 ~ 2% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 7254 ~ 7% +83.8% 13331 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 15285 ~14% +75.0% 26750 ~ 1% TOTAL softirqs.RCU abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 37.34 ~ 1% -32.6% 25.17 ~ 3% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1.04 ~17% -51.2% 0.51 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 0.74 ~27% -48.8% 0.38 ~ 6% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 39.12 ~ 1% -33.4% 26.06 ~ 3% TOTAL turbostat.%c1 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8107 ~ 2% -28.5% 5798 ~ 9% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8107 ~ 2% -28.5% 5798 ~ 9% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 622 ~ 9% -26.8% 455 ~14% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 622 ~ 9% -26.8% 455 ~14% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache_node.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8610 ~ 2% -28.2% 6180 ~12% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8610 ~ 2% -28.2% 6180 ~12% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 640 ~ 8% -26.0% 473 ~13% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 640 ~ 8% -26.0% 473 ~13% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache_node.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8876 ~ 2% -27.2% 6465 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8876 ~ 2% -27.2% 6465 ~11% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 29.02 ~ 1% +40.6% 40.81 ~ 2% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 29.02 ~ 1% +40.6% 40.81 ~ 2% TOTAL turbostat.%c6 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1223070 ~11% -25.6% 909702 ~ 5% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1223070 ~11% -25.6% 909702 ~ 5% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1278 ~ 6% +38.0% 1764 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 1257 ~ 5% +30.6% 1641 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 2535 ~ 6% +34.3% 3406 ~ 4% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2944 ~12% -21.2% 2319 ~13% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 2944 ~12% -21.2% 2319 ~13% TOTAL slabinfo.anon_vma.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 440 ~ 9% +18.5% 521 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 440 ~ 9% +18.5% 521 ~10% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1751 ~ 9% +18.6% 2076 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1751 ~ 9% +18.6% 2076 ~10% TOTAL numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2.828e+09 ~ 0% -14.9% 2.407e+09 ~ 1% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 2.828e+09 ~ 0% -14.9% 2.407e+09 ~ 1% TOTAL cpuidle.C1-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 966 ~ 2% -13.0% 840 ~ 3% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 949 ~ 2% -10.6% 848 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1915 ~ 2% -11.8% 1688 ~ 2% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-96.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 966 ~ 2% -13.0% 840 ~ 3% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 949 ~ 2% -10.6% 848 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1915 ~ 2% -11.8% 1688 ~ 2% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-96.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 41345 ~ 1% +12.5% 46521 ~ 0% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 41345 ~ 1% +12.5% 46521 ~ 0% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 13053 ~ 1% +12.0% 14613 ~ 4% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 13053 ~ 1% +12.0% 14613 ~ 4% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-192.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 13053 ~ 1% +12.1% 14629 ~ 4% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 13053 ~ 1% +12.1% 14629 ~ 4% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-192.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2.02 ~ 3% -8.6% 1.85 ~ 5% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 2.02 ~ 3% -8.6% 1.85 ~ 5% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.intel_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpu_idle_loop.cpu_startup_entry abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8226 ~ 2% -88.4% 957 ~22% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 8291 ~ 1% -91.1% 736 ~24% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 16518 ~ 2% -89.7% 1694 ~23% TOTAL time.involuntary_context_switches abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 766220 ~ 1% -7.3% 709976 ~ 2% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 766220 ~ 1% -7.3% 709976 ~ 2% TOTAL vmstat.system.cs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 122 ~ 0% -4.4% 117 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 122 ~ 0% -4.4% 117 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.Cor_W abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 153 ~ 0% -3.5% 148 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 153 ~ 0% -3.5% 148 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.Pkg_W abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 33.48 ~ 0% +1.5% 33.97 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 33.48 ~ 0% +1.5% 33.97 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.%c0 Legend: ~XX% - stddev percent [+-]XX% - change percent time.involuntary_context_switches 9000 ++--------------*----------------------------------------------------+ |.*..*.*.*.. .* + .*.*.*..*.*.*..*.*. .*.*.*..*.*.*..*.*.*.*..*.* 8000 *+ * *. *.*. | 7000 ++ | | | 6000 ++ | 5000 ++ | | | 4000 ++ | 3000 ++ | | | 2000 ++ | 1000 ++ O O O | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | 0 ++---------------------------------O-O-------------------------------+ [*] bisect-good sample [O] bisect-bad sample 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. Thanks, Aaron [-- Attachment #2: reproduce.ksh --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --] echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_governor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps @ 2014-07-25 6:45 ` Aaron Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 6:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul E. McKenney; +Cc: Jet Chen, LKML, lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12008 bytes --] FYI, we noticed the below changes on git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1050 ~ 4% -91.4% 90 ~23% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1050 ~ 4% -91.4% 90 ~23% TOTAL cpuidle.POLL.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 53785432 ~ 4% -77.8% 11927078 ~26% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 53785432 ~ 4% -77.8% 11927078 ~26% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 5674 ~30% +1060.9% 65880 ~ 3% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 5674 ~30% +1060.9% 65880 ~ 3% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 851366 ~ 8% -74.4% 218296 ~24% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 851366 ~ 8% -74.4% 218296 ~24% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8045967 ~28% -81.9% 1454789 ~14% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 6021385 ~41% -70.5% 1773953 ~18% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 14067352 ~34% -77.0% 3228743 ~16% TOTAL cpuidle.C1-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 78355 ~ 2% -77.0% 18022 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 78355 ~ 2% -77.0% 18022 ~11% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 0.16 ~11% -72.5% 0.04 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 0.16 ~11% -72.5% 0.04 ~11% TOTAL turbostat.%c3 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 237 ~ 9% +169.4% 640 ~ 2% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 197 ~11% +177.3% 546 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 435 ~10% +173.0% 1187 ~ 3% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 32364085 ~ 6% -62.3% 12189943 ~16% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 32364085 ~ 6% -62.3% 12189943 ~16% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 10134346 ~ 1% -55.0% 4563107 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 10134346 ~ 1% -55.0% 4563107 ~10% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 82079 ~ 6% +176.9% 227278 ~23% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 82079 ~ 6% +176.9% 227278 ~23% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 659858 ~ 5% -49.7% 332152 ~19% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 659858 ~ 5% -49.7% 332152 ~19% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8031 ~20% +67.1% 13418 ~ 2% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 7254 ~ 7% +83.8% 13331 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 15285 ~14% +75.0% 26750 ~ 1% TOTAL softirqs.RCU abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 37.34 ~ 1% -32.6% 25.17 ~ 3% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1.04 ~17% -51.2% 0.51 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 0.74 ~27% -48.8% 0.38 ~ 6% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 39.12 ~ 1% -33.4% 26.06 ~ 3% TOTAL turbostat.%c1 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 512 ~11% -32.5% 345 ~18% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8107 ~ 2% -28.5% 5798 ~ 9% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8107 ~ 2% -28.5% 5798 ~ 9% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 622 ~ 9% -26.8% 455 ~14% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 622 ~ 9% -26.8% 455 ~14% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache_node.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8610 ~ 2% -28.2% 6180 ~12% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8610 ~ 2% -28.2% 6180 ~12% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 640 ~ 8% -26.0% 473 ~13% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 640 ~ 8% -26.0% 473 ~13% TOTAL slabinfo.kmem_cache_node.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8876 ~ 2% -27.2% 6465 ~11% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 8876 ~ 2% -27.2% 6465 ~11% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 29.02 ~ 1% +40.6% 40.81 ~ 2% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 29.02 ~ 1% +40.6% 40.81 ~ 2% TOTAL turbostat.%c6 abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1223070 ~11% -25.6% 909702 ~ 5% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1223070 ~11% -25.6% 909702 ~ 5% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-SNB.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1278 ~ 6% +38.0% 1764 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 1257 ~ 5% +30.6% 1641 ~ 4% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 2535 ~ 6% +34.3% 3406 ~ 4% TOTAL cpuidle.C1E-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2944 ~12% -21.2% 2319 ~13% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 2944 ~12% -21.2% 2319 ~13% TOTAL slabinfo.anon_vma.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 440 ~ 9% +18.5% 521 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 440 ~ 9% +18.5% 521 ~10% TOTAL numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 1751 ~ 9% +18.6% 2076 ~10% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 1751 ~ 9% +18.6% 2076 ~10% TOTAL numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2.828e+09 ~ 0% -14.9% 2.407e+09 ~ 1% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 2.828e+09 ~ 0% -14.9% 2.407e+09 ~ 1% TOTAL cpuidle.C1-IVT.time abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 966 ~ 2% -13.0% 840 ~ 3% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 949 ~ 2% -10.6% 848 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1915 ~ 2% -11.8% 1688 ~ 2% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-96.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 966 ~ 2% -13.0% 840 ~ 3% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 949 ~ 2% -10.6% 848 ~ 1% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 1915 ~ 2% -11.8% 1688 ~ 2% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-96.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 41345 ~ 1% +12.5% 46521 ~ 0% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 41345 ~ 1% +12.5% 46521 ~ 0% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-SNB.usage abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 13053 ~ 1% +12.0% 14613 ~ 4% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 13053 ~ 1% +12.0% 14613 ~ 4% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-192.active_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 13053 ~ 1% +12.1% 14629 ~ 4% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 13053 ~ 1% +12.1% 14629 ~ 4% TOTAL slabinfo.kmalloc-192.num_objs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 2.02 ~ 3% -8.6% 1.85 ~ 5% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 2.02 ~ 3% -8.6% 1.85 ~ 5% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.intel_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpu_idle_loop.cpu_startup_entry abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 8226 ~ 2% -88.4% 957 ~22% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-128K 8291 ~ 1% -91.1% 736 ~24% lkp-sb02/pigz/25%-512K 16518 ~ 2% -89.7% 1694 ~23% TOTAL time.involuntary_context_switches abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 766220 ~ 1% -7.3% 709976 ~ 2% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 766220 ~ 1% -7.3% 709976 ~ 2% TOTAL vmstat.system.cs abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 122 ~ 0% -4.4% 117 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 122 ~ 0% -4.4% 117 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.Cor_W abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 153 ~ 0% -3.5% 148 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 153 ~ 0% -3.5% 148 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.Pkg_W abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec --------------- ------------------------- 33.48 ~ 0% +1.5% 33.97 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR 33.48 ~ 0% +1.5% 33.97 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.%c0 Legend: ~XX% - stddev percent [+-]XX% - change percent time.involuntary_context_switches 9000 ++--------------*----------------------------------------------------+ |.*..*.*.*.. .* + .*.*.*..*.*.*..*.*. .*.*.*..*.*.*..*.*.*.*..*.* 8000 *+ * *. *.*. | 7000 ++ | | | 6000 ++ | 5000 ++ | | | 4000 ++ | 3000 ++ | | | 2000 ++ | 1000 ++ O O O | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | 0 ++---------------------------------O-O-------------------------------+ [*] bisect-good sample [O] bisect-bad sample 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. Thanks, Aaron [-- Attachment #2: reproduce --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 293 bytes --] echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu2/cpufreq/scaling_governor echo performance > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cpufreq/scaling_governor ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps 2014-07-25 6:45 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 756 bytes --] On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > FYI, we noticed the below changes on > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") > > abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec > --------------- ------------------------- > 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR > 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my piddling around with high frequency switching loads, they tend to have too much build to build and boot to boot variance to track 1.5%. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps @ 2014-07-25 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 7:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aaron Lu; +Cc: Paul E. McKenney, Jet Chen, LKML, lkp On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > FYI, we noticed the below changes on > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") > > abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec > --------------- ------------------------- > 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR > 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my piddling around with high frequency switching loads, they tend to have too much build to build and boot to boot variance to track 1.5%. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps 2014-07-25 7:35 ` [LKP] " Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 8:05 ` Aaron Lu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1478 bytes --] On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >> >> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >> --------------- ------------------------- >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps > > Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my The cmdline for this test is: netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > piddling around with high frequency switching loads, they tend to have > too much build to build and boot to boot variance to track 1.5%. The actual results are not 100% stable, here is the values of the 5 runs: $ cat [0-4]/netperf.json { "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12674.061666666668 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12705.6325 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12621.97333333333 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12604.785000000002 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12664.158333333333 ] I suppose the way the stddev% is calculated by first calculating the average and then compare the individual value with the average. Fengguang, is this correct? Thanks, Aaron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps @ 2014-07-25 8:05 ` Aaron Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 8:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: Paul E. McKenney, Jet Chen, LKML, lkp, Fengguang Wu On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >> >> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >> --------------- ------------------------- >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps > > Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my The cmdline for this test is: netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > piddling around with high frequency switching loads, they tend to have > too much build to build and boot to boot variance to track 1.5%. The actual results are not 100% stable, here is the values of the 5 runs: $ cat [0-4]/netperf.json { "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12674.061666666668 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12705.6325 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12621.97333333333 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12604.785000000002 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_tps": [ 12664.158333333333 ] I suppose the way the stddev% is calculated by first calculating the average and then compare the individual value with the average. Fengguang, is this correct? Thanks, Aaron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps 2014-07-25 8:05 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 9:44 ` Mike Galbraith -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --] On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on > >> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > >> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") > >> > >> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec > >> --------------- ------------------------- > >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR > >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps > > > > Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my > > The cmdline for this test is: > netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no matter, I was just curious. Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps @ 2014-07-25 9:44 ` Mike Galbraith 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aaron Lu; +Cc: Paul E. McKenney, Jet Chen, LKML, lkp, Fengguang Wu On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on > >> > >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > >> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") > >> > >> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec > >> --------------- ------------------------- > >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR > >> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps > > > > Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my > > The cmdline for this test is: > netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no matter, I was just curious. Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. -Mike ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps 2014-07-25 9:44 ` [LKP] " Mike Galbraith @ 2014-07-25 14:31 ` Aaron Lu -1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: lkp [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1770 bytes --] On 07/25/2014 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >>>> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >>>> >>>> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >>>> --------------- ------------------------- >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps >>> >>> Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my >> >> The cmdline for this test is: >> netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > > Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still > expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no > matter, I was just curious. The bisect is done by the LKP test system(developed by Fengguang) automatically so it's not that painful for me :-) But as you have said, the 1.5% change is too small and probably doesn't worth a report, I'll be more careful next time when examining the report. > > Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if > it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to > remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because The CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is set to y, I'll disable it to see if the number changes, thanks for the tips. Regards, Aaron > your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. > > -Mike > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps @ 2014-07-25 14:31 ` Aaron Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Aaron Lu @ 2014-07-25 14:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mike Galbraith; +Cc: Paul E. McKenney, Jet Chen, LKML, lkp, Fengguang Wu On 07/25/2014 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >>>> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >>>> >>>> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >>>> --------------- ------------------------- >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps >>> >>> Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my >> >> The cmdline for this test is: >> netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > > Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still > expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no > matter, I was just curious. The bisect is done by the LKP test system(developed by Fengguang) automatically so it's not that painful for me :-) But as you have said, the 1.5% change is too small and probably doesn't worth a report, I'll be more careful next time when examining the report. > > Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if > it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to > remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because The CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is set to y, I'll disable it to see if the number changes, thanks for the tips. Regards, Aaron > your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. > > -Mike > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-07-25 14:31 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <53d1f486.t70cWJ/Ilm6Y3o5/%fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2014-07-25 6:45 ` [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps Aaron Lu
2014-07-25 6:45 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu
2014-07-25 7:35 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-25 7:35 ` [LKP] " Mike Galbraith
2014-07-25 8:05 ` Aaron Lu
2014-07-25 8:05 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu
2014-07-25 9:44 ` Mike Galbraith
2014-07-25 9:44 ` [LKP] " Mike Galbraith
2014-07-25 14:31 ` Aaron Lu
2014-07-25 14:31 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu
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.