From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [perf powerpc] 18d1796d0b: [No primary change]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:09:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mvhroo8c.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161025090651.GC3175@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5207 bytes --]
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:40:13PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> [will-it-scale] perf-stat.branch-miss-rate +7.4% regression
>> Reply-To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
>> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 6/20/10
>>
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a +7.4% regression of perf-stat.branch-miss-rate due to commit:
>>
>> commit 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2ad3f7510ffbaa9 ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Jiri-Olsa/perf-powerpc-Don-t-call-perf_event_disable-from-atomic-context/20161006-203500
>>
>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>> on test machine: 32 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz with 64G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> test: poll2
>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>
>> Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
>
>> Details are as below:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>>
>> To reproduce:
>>
>> git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git
>> cd lkp-tests
>> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-6/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-sb03/poll2/will-it-scale
>>
>> commit:
>> 41aad2a6d4 (" perf/core improvements and fixes:")
>> 18d1796d0b ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
>>
>> 41aad2a6d4fcdda8 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
>> | | |
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 0.19 . 0% +7.4% 0.21 . 0% perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
>> 9.591e+09 . 1% +9.1% 1.047e+10 . 0% perf-stat.branch-misses
>> 1.962e+09 . 0% +2.3% 2.008e+09 . 1% perf-stat.cache-references
>> 51.18 . 2% +5.6% 54.06 . 1% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
>> 46430577 . 5% -6.9% 43241506 . 2% perf-stat.iTLB-loads
>> 9.90 . 4% +9.3% 10.82 . 4% turbostat.Pkg%pc2
>> 62066 . 24% +34.7% 83582 . 11% numa-meminfo.node1.Active
>> 49531 . 30% +42.9% 70778 . 13% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.avg.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.max.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 32685 . 38% +88.5% 61603 .147% latency_stats.sum.call_rwsem_down_write_failed.path_openat.do_filp_open.do_sys_open.SyS_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.sum.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 92795 . 4% -8.6% 84853 . 6% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
>> 92782 . 4% -8.5% 84851 . 6% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
>> 12381 . 30% +42.9% 17694 . 13% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_anon
>> 12381 . 30% +42.9% 17694 . 13% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_active_anon
>> 21.80 . 59% -69.8% 6.58 . 83% sched_debug.cpu.clock.stddev
>> 21.80 . 59% -69.8% 6.58 . 83% sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.stddev
>> 0.00 . 23% -34.3% 0.00 . 20% sched_debug.cpu.next_balance.stddev
>> 35829 . 9% -18.4% 29221 . 6% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
>> 8361 . 6% -13.4% 7243 . 7% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
>> 8.43 . 11% -25.2% 6.30 . 12% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
>> 18057 . 6% -14.3% 15482 . 8% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.stddev
>>
>
> ARGH... so what is the normal metric for this test and did that change?
> And why can't I still find that? These reports suck!
There is observable changes between the benchmark (will-it-scale)
scores. That is said in the subject of the mail: "[No primary
change]". But apparently, that is not clear. We will improve that to
make it more clear.
> The result doesn't make sense, my gcc inlines the function call, the
> emitted code is very similar to the old code, with exception of one
> extra symbol.
>
> Are you sure this isn't simple run to run variation?
The reported change is perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%, which is changed
from 0.19% to 0.21%. That is too small. So, please ignore this
report. We will be more careful in the future.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
<lkp@01.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>,
"Paul Mackerras" <paulus@samba.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [perf powerpc] 18d1796d0b: [No primary change]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:09:23 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mvhroo8c.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161025090651.GC3175@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> (Peter Zijlstra's message of "Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:06:51 +0200")
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:40:13PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> [will-it-scale] perf-stat.branch-miss-rate +7.4% regression
>> Reply-To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
>> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 6/20/10
>>
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a +7.4% regression of perf-stat.branch-miss-rate due to commit:
>>
>> commit 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2ad3f7510ffbaa9 ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Jiri-Olsa/perf-powerpc-Don-t-call-perf_event_disable-from-atomic-context/20161006-203500
>>
>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>> on test machine: 32 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz with 64G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> test: poll2
>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>
>> Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
>
>> Details are as below:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>>
>> To reproduce:
>>
>> git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git
>> cd lkp-tests
>> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-6/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-sb03/poll2/will-it-scale
>>
>> commit:
>> 41aad2a6d4 (" perf/core improvements and fixes:")
>> 18d1796d0b ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
>>
>> 41aad2a6d4fcdda8 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs
>> | | |
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 0.19 . 0% +7.4% 0.21 . 0% perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
>> 9.591e+09 . 1% +9.1% 1.047e+10 . 0% perf-stat.branch-misses
>> 1.962e+09 . 0% +2.3% 2.008e+09 . 1% perf-stat.cache-references
>> 51.18 . 2% +5.6% 54.06 . 1% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
>> 46430577 . 5% -6.9% 43241506 . 2% perf-stat.iTLB-loads
>> 9.90 . 4% +9.3% 10.82 . 4% turbostat.Pkg%pc2
>> 62066 . 24% +34.7% 83582 . 11% numa-meminfo.node1.Active
>> 49531 . 30% +42.9% 70778 . 13% numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.avg.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.max.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 32685 . 38% +88.5% 61603 .147% latency_stats.sum.call_rwsem_down_write_failed.path_openat.do_filp_open.do_sys_open.SyS_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
>> 27883 .100% -100.0% 0.00 . -1% latency_stats.sum.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>> 92795 . 4% -8.6% 84853 . 6% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
>> 92782 . 4% -8.5% 84851 . 6% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
>> 12381 . 30% +42.9% 17694 . 13% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_anon
>> 12381 . 30% +42.9% 17694 . 13% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_active_anon
>> 21.80 . 59% -69.8% 6.58 . 83% sched_debug.cpu.clock.stddev
>> 21.80 . 59% -69.8% 6.58 . 83% sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.stddev
>> 0.00 . 23% -34.3% 0.00 . 20% sched_debug.cpu.next_balance.stddev
>> 35829 . 9% -18.4% 29221 . 6% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
>> 8361 . 6% -13.4% 7243 . 7% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
>> 8.43 . 11% -25.2% 6.30 . 12% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
>> 18057 . 6% -14.3% 15482 . 8% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.stddev
>>
>
> ARGH... so what is the normal metric for this test and did that change?
> And why can't I still find that? These reports suck!
There is observable changes between the benchmark (will-it-scale)
scores. That is said in the subject of the mail: "[No primary
change]". But apparently, that is not clear. We will improve that to
make it more clear.
> The result doesn't make sense, my gcc inlines the function call, the
> emitted code is very similar to the old code, with exception of one
> extra symbol.
>
> Are you sure this isn't simple run to run variation?
The reported change is perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%, which is changed
from 0.19% to 0.21%. That is too small. So, please ignore this
report. We will be more careful in the future.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-26 2:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-21 13:55 [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context Jiri Olsa
2016-09-23 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-03 13:29 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-03 13:47 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-04 4:29 ` Michael Ellerman
2016-10-04 7:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-10 13:19 ` Will Deacon
2016-10-05 8:09 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-05 19:53 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-06 7:24 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-06 12:33 ` [PATCHv2] " Jiri Olsa
2016-10-24 12:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-24 15:49 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-25 6:40 ` [perf powerpc] 18d1796d0b: [No primary change] kernel test robot
2016-10-25 6:40 ` [lkp] " kernel test robot
2016-10-25 9:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-25 9:06 ` [lkp] " Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-26 2:09 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2016-10-26 2:09 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-10-26 9:48 ` [PATCHv3] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context Jiri Olsa
2016-10-26 9:48 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-26 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-26 15:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-10-26 15:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-26 15:24 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-28 10:10 ` [tip:perf/urgent] perf/powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable() " tip-bot for Jiri Olsa
2016-10-04 4:08 ` [PATCH] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable " Michael Ellerman
2016-10-05 8:08 ` Jiri Olsa
2016-10-05 8:21 ` Jan Stancek
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=87mvhroo8c.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@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.