From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:24:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mvsgfxtd.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160107112301.GE4062@osiris>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3796 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.
The test is quite stable for my side. We run the test case 7 times for
your commit and its parent. The standard variation is very low.
you commit:
[2493136, 2510964, 2508784, 2495632, 2506735, 2503016, 2510121]
parent commit:
[2735669, 2719566, 2739052, 2741485, 2735152, 2739356, 2739125]
The test result is stable for bisection too. The below figure show the
results of good commits and bad commits. The distance between is quite
big. And the variation is quite small.
will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
2.75e+06 ++--*---*--------------*---*------*---*---*-*-*-*----------*---*-+
*.* + + + .*. .*.*.* + + + .*.* + + + + *.*.**.* * *
2.7e+06 ++ * ** * * * * * |
| |
| |
2.65e+06 ++ |
| |
2.6e+06 ++ |
| |
2.55e+06 ++ |
| |
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
2.5e+06 ++ O OO O O O O O O O |
| |
2.45e+06 ++---------------------------------------------------------------+
FYI, I test your patch on x86 platform. I have no s390 system.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <lkp@01.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm/vmstat] 6cdb18ad98: -8.5% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2016 13:24:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87mvsgfxtd.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.
The test is quite stable for my side. We run the test case 7 times for
your commit and its parent. The standard variation is very low.
you commit:
[2493136, 2510964, 2508784, 2495632, 2506735, 2503016, 2510121]
parent commit:
[2735669, 2719566, 2739052, 2741485, 2735152, 2739356, 2739125]
The test result is stable for bisection too. The below figure show the
results of good commits and bad commits. The distance between is quite
big. And the variation is quite small.
will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
2.75e+06 ++--*---*--------------*---*------*---*---*-*-*-*----------*---*-+
*.* + + + .*. .*.*.* + + + .*.* + + + + *.*.**.* * *
2.7e+06 ++ * ** * * * * * |
| |
| |
2.65e+06 ++ |
| |
2.6e+06 ++ |
| |
2.55e+06 ++ |
| |
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
2.5e+06 ++ O OO O O O O O O O |
| |
2.45e+06 ++---------------------------------------------------------------+
FYI, I test your patch on x86 platform. I have no s390 system.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-01-08 5:24 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 [this message]
2016-01-08 5:24 ` [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
2016-01-21 6:47 ` [lkp] " 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=87mvsgfxtd.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.