From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:47:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737tro2db.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160107112301.GE4062@osiris>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7745 bytes --]
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:20:55AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8 ("mm/vmstat: fix overflow in mod_zone_page_state()")
>>
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
>>
>> commit:
>> cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
>> 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
>>
>> cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 2733943 . 0% -8.5% 2502129 . 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>> 3410 . 0% -2.0% 3343 . 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
>> 340.08 . 0% +19.7% 406.99 . 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
>> 69882822 . 2% -24.3% 52926191 . 5% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
>> 340.08 . 0% +19.7% 406.99 . 0% time.user_time
>> 491.25 . 6% -17.7% 404.25 . 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_alloc_batch
>> 2799 . 20% -36.6% 1776 . 0% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
>> 630.00 .140% +244.4% 2169 . 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_anon
>
> Hmm... this is odd. I did review all callers of mod_zone_page_state() and
> couldn't find anything obvious that would go wrong after the int -> long
> change.
>
> I also tried the "pread1_threads" test case from
> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale.git
>
> However the results seem to vary a lot after a reboot(!), at least on s390.
>
> So I'm not sure if this is really a regression.
Most part of the regression is restored for v4.4. But because the changes are
like "V", it is hard to bisect.
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/thread/24/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
commit:
cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
v4.4
cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0 v4.4
---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
\ | \ | \
3083436 ± 0% -9.6% 2788374 ± 0% -3.7% 2970130 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
6447 ± 0% -2.2% 6308 ± 0% -0.3% 6425 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
776.90 ± 0% +17.9% 915.71 ± 0% +2.9% 799.12 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
316177 ± 4% -4.6% 301616 ± 3% -10.3% 283563 ± 3% softirqs.RCU
776.90 ± 0% +17.9% 915.71 ± 0% +2.9% 799.12 ± 0% time.user_time
777.33 ± 7% +20.8% 938.67 ± 7% +7.5% 836.00 ± 8% slabinfo.blkdev_requests.active_objs
777.33 ± 7% +20.8% 938.67 ± 7% +7.5% 836.00 ± 8% slabinfo.blkdev_requests.num_objs
74313962 ± 44% -16.5% 62053062 ± 41% -49.9% 37246967 ± 8% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
43381614 ± 79% +24.4% 53966568 ±111% +123.9% 97135791 ± 33% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time
97.67 ± 36% +95.2% 190.67 ± 63% +122.5% 217.33 ± 41% cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage
3679437 ± 69% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.avg.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
5177475 ± 82% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.max.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
11726393 ±112% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.sum.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
178.07 ± 0% -1.3% 175.79 ± 0% -0.8% 176.62 ± 0% turbostat.CorWatt
0.20 ± 2% -16.9% 0.16 ± 18% -11.9% 0.17 ± 17% turbostat.Pkg%pc6
207.38 ± 0% -1.1% 205.13 ± 0% -0.7% 205.99 ± 0% turbostat.PkgWatt
6889 ± 33% -49.2% 3497 ± 86% -19.4% 5552 ± 27% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_active_anon
483.33 ± 29% -32.3% 327.00 ± 48% +0.1% 483.67 ± 29% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_page_table_pages
27536 ± 96% +10.9% 30535 ± 78% +148.5% 68418 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other
214.00 ± 11% +18.1% 252.67 ± 4% +2.8% 220.00 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_kernel_stack
370.67 ± 38% +42.0% 526.33 ± 30% -0.2% 370.00 ± 39% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages
61177 ± 43% -5.2% 57976 ± 41% -66.3% 20644 ± 10% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other
78172 ± 13% -16.1% 65573 ± 18% -5.8% 73626 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node0.Active
27560 ± 33% -49.2% 14006 ± 86% -19.4% 22203 ± 27% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
3891 ± 58% -38.1% 2407 ±100% -58.8% 1604 ±110% numa-meminfo.node0.AnonHugePages
1934 ± 29% -32.3% 1309 ± 48% +0.1% 1936 ± 29% numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables
63139 ± 17% +19.8% 75670 ± 16% +6.0% 66937 ± 10% numa-meminfo.node1.Active
3432 ± 11% +18.0% 4049 ± 4% +2.8% 3527 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node1.KernelStack
1483 ± 38% +42.0% 2106 ± 30% -0.2% 1481 ± 39% numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables
1.47 ± 1% -11.8% 1.30 ± 2% -7.0% 1.37 ± 3% perf-profile.cycles-pp.___might_sleep.__might_sleep.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_file_read_iter
2.00 ± 2% -11.3% 1.78 ± 2% -7.2% 1.86 ± 2% perf-profile.cycles-pp.__might_sleep.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read
2.30 ± 4% +33.6% 3.07 ± 0% -1.9% 2.26 ± 1% perf-profile.cycles-pp.atime_needs_update.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read
1.05 ± 1% -27.7% 0.76 ± 1% -8.0% 0.96 ± 0% perf-profile.cycles-pp.current_fs_time.atime_needs_update.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read
2.21 ± 3% -11.9% 1.94 ± 2% -9.4% 2.00 ± 0% perf-profile.cycles-pp.fput.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
0.78 ± 2% +38.5% 1.08 ± 2% +23.1% 0.96 ± 3% perf-profile.cycles-pp.fsnotify.vfs_read.sys_pread64.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
2.87 ± 7% +42.6% 4.09 ± 1% -0.3% 2.86 ± 2% perf-profile.cycles-pp.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read.sys_pread64
6.68 ± 2% -7.3% 6.19 ± 1% -6.7% 6.23 ± 1% perf-profile.cycles-pp.unlock_page.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read.sys_pread64
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@linux.intel.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: lkp@01.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 14:47:28 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8737tro2db.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160107112301.GE4062@osiris> (Heiko Carstens's message of "Thu, 7 Jan 2016 12:23:01 +0100")
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 11:20:55AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8 ("mm/vmstat: fix overflow in mod_zone_page_state()")
>>
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
>>
>> commit:
>> cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
>> 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
>>
>> cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 2733943 . 0% -8.5% 2502129 . 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>> 3410 . 0% -2.0% 3343 . 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
>> 340.08 . 0% +19.7% 406.99 . 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
>> 69882822 . 2% -24.3% 52926191 . 5% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
>> 340.08 . 0% +19.7% 406.99 . 0% time.user_time
>> 491.25 . 6% -17.7% 404.25 . 7% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_alloc_batch
>> 2799 . 20% -36.6% 1776 . 0% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
>> 630.00 .140% +244.4% 2169 . 1% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_anon
>
> Hmm... this is odd. I did review all callers of mod_zone_page_state() and
> couldn't find anything obvious that would go wrong after the int -> long
> change.
>
> I also tried the "pread1_threads" test case from
> https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale.git
>
> However the results seem to vary a lot after a reboot(!), at least on s390.
>
> So I'm not sure if this is really a regression.
Most part of the regression is restored for v4.4. But because the changes are
like "V", it is hard to bisect.
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/thread/24/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/ivb42/pread1/will-it-scale
commit:
cc28d6d80f6ab494b10f0e2ec949eacd610f66e3
6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0614cde827404b8
v4.4
cc28d6d80f6ab494 6cdb18ad98a49f7e9b95d538a0 v4.4
---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
\ | \ | \
3083436 ± 0% -9.6% 2788374 ± 0% -3.7% 2970130 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
6447 ± 0% -2.2% 6308 ± 0% -0.3% 6425 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.system_time
776.90 ± 0% +17.9% 915.71 ± 0% +2.9% 799.12 ± 0% will-it-scale.time.user_time
316177 ± 4% -4.6% 301616 ± 3% -10.3% 283563 ± 3% softirqs.RCU
776.90 ± 0% +17.9% 915.71 ± 0% +2.9% 799.12 ± 0% time.user_time
777.33 ± 7% +20.8% 938.67 ± 7% +7.5% 836.00 ± 8% slabinfo.blkdev_requests.active_objs
777.33 ± 7% +20.8% 938.67 ± 7% +7.5% 836.00 ± 8% slabinfo.blkdev_requests.num_objs
74313962 ± 44% -16.5% 62053062 ± 41% -49.9% 37246967 ± 8% cpuidle.C1-IVT.time
43381614 ± 79% +24.4% 53966568 ±111% +123.9% 97135791 ± 33% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time
97.67 ± 36% +95.2% 190.67 ± 63% +122.5% 217.33 ± 41% cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage
3679437 ± 69% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.avg.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
5177475 ± 82% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.max.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
11726393 ±112% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% latency_stats.sum.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
178.07 ± 0% -1.3% 175.79 ± 0% -0.8% 176.62 ± 0% turbostat.CorWatt
0.20 ± 2% -16.9% 0.16 ± 18% -11.9% 0.17 ± 17% turbostat.Pkg%pc6
207.38 ± 0% -1.1% 205.13 ± 0% -0.7% 205.99 ± 0% turbostat.PkgWatt
6889 ± 33% -49.2% 3497 ± 86% -19.4% 5552 ± 27% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_active_anon
483.33 ± 29% -32.3% 327.00 ± 48% +0.1% 483.67 ± 29% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_page_table_pages
27536 ± 96% +10.9% 30535 ± 78% +148.5% 68418 ± 2% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_other
214.00 ± 11% +18.1% 252.67 ± 4% +2.8% 220.00 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_kernel_stack
370.67 ± 38% +42.0% 526.33 ± 30% -0.2% 370.00 ± 39% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_page_table_pages
61177 ± 43% -5.2% 57976 ± 41% -66.3% 20644 ± 10% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_other
78172 ± 13% -16.1% 65573 ± 18% -5.8% 73626 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node0.Active
27560 ± 33% -49.2% 14006 ± 86% -19.4% 22203 ± 27% numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
3891 ± 58% -38.1% 2407 ±100% -58.8% 1604 ±110% numa-meminfo.node0.AnonHugePages
1934 ± 29% -32.3% 1309 ± 48% +0.1% 1936 ± 29% numa-meminfo.node0.PageTables
63139 ± 17% +19.8% 75670 ± 16% +6.0% 66937 ± 10% numa-meminfo.node1.Active
3432 ± 11% +18.0% 4049 ± 4% +2.8% 3527 ± 9% numa-meminfo.node1.KernelStack
1483 ± 38% +42.0% 2106 ± 30% -0.2% 1481 ± 39% numa-meminfo.node1.PageTables
1.47 ± 1% -11.8% 1.30 ± 2% -7.0% 1.37 ± 3% perf-profile.cycles-pp.___might_sleep.__might_sleep.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_file_read_iter
2.00 ± 2% -11.3% 1.78 ± 2% -7.2% 1.86 ± 2% perf-profile.cycles-pp.__might_sleep.find_lock_entry.shmem_getpage_gfp.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read
2.30 ± 4% +33.6% 3.07 ± 0% -1.9% 2.26 ± 1% perf-profile.cycles-pp.atime_needs_update.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read
1.05 ± 1% -27.7% 0.76 ± 1% -8.0% 0.96 ± 0% perf-profile.cycles-pp.current_fs_time.atime_needs_update.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read
2.21 ± 3% -11.9% 1.94 ± 2% -9.4% 2.00 ± 0% perf-profile.cycles-pp.fput.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
0.78 ± 2% +38.5% 1.08 ± 2% +23.1% 0.96 ± 3% perf-profile.cycles-pp.fsnotify.vfs_read.sys_pread64.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
2.87 ± 7% +42.6% 4.09 ± 1% -0.3% 2.86 ± 2% perf-profile.cycles-pp.touch_atime.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read.sys_pread64
6.68 ± 2% -7.3% 6.19 ± 1% -6.7% 6.23 ± 1% perf-profile.cycles-pp.unlock_page.shmem_file_read_iter.__vfs_read.vfs_read.sys_pread64
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-21 6:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-06 3:20 [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops kernel test robot
2016-01-06 3:20 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-01-07 11:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-01-07 11:23 ` [lkp] " Heiko Carstens
2016-01-08 5:24 ` Huang, Ying
2016-01-08 5:24 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-08 11:13 ` Heiko Carstens
2016-01-08 11:13 ` [LKP] [lkp] " Heiko Carstens
2016-01-21 6:47 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2016-01-21 6:47 ` Huang, Ying
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=8737tro2db.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@linux.intel.com \
--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.