From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:25:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y1amo7w0.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfDr6qOaMVnyoB8W@pavilion.home>
On Wed, Mar 13 2024 at 00:57, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> So I can reproduce. And after hours staring at traces I haven't really found
> the real cause of this. 1% difference is not always easy to track down.
> But here are some sort of conclusion so far:
>
> _ There is an increase of ksoftirqd use (+13%) but if I boot with threadirqs
> before and after the patch (which means that ksoftirqd is used all the time
> for softirq handling) I still see the performance regression. So this
> shouldn't play a role here.
>
> _ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues of timers on behalf of
> idle CPUs would delay NET_RX softirqs but it doesn't seem to be the case. I
> don't see TIMER vector delaying NET_RX vector after the hierarchical pull
> model, quite the opposite actually, they are less delayed overall.
>
> _ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues would add scheduling
> latency. But it doesn't seem to be the case. Quite the opposite again,
> surprisingly.
>
> _ I have observed that, in average, timers execute later with the hierarchical
> pull model. The following delta:
> time of callback execution - bucket_expiry
> is 3 times higher with the hierarchical pull model. Whether that plays a role
> is unclear. It might still be interesting to investigate.
>
> _ The initial perf profile seem to suggest a big increase of task migration. Is
> it the result of ping-pong wakeup? Does that play a role?
Migration is not cheap. The interesting question is whether this is
caused by remote timer expiry.
Looking at the perf data there are significant changes vs. idle too:
perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.poll_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpuidle_idle_call.do_idle
36.91 ± 2% -12.6 24.32 ± 10% -12.3 24.63 ± 5%
That indicates that cpuidle is spending less time in idle polling, which
means that wakeup latency increases. That obviously might be a result of
the timer migration properties.
Do you have traces (before and after) handy to share?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-13 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 8:09 [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression kernel test robot
2024-03-04 0:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-04 2:13 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-04 11:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 2:17 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-05 10:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-12 23:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-13 8:25 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2024-03-13 14:51 ` Frederic Weisbecker
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=87y1amo7w0.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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.