From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Linux-X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:24:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131216102439.GA21624@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131215155539.GM11295@suse.de>
* Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> wrote:
> I had hacked ebizzy to report on the performance of each thread, not
> just the overall result and worked out the difference in performance
> of each thread. In a complete fair test you would expect the
> performance of each thread to be identical and so the spread would
> be 0
>
> ebizzy thread spread
> 3.13.0-rc3 3.13.0-rc3 3.4.69
> vanilla nowalk-v2r7 vanilla
> Mean 1 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> Mean 2 0.34 ( 0.00%) 0.30 (-11.76%) 0.07 (-79.41%)
> Mean 3 1.29 ( 0.00%) 0.92 (-28.68%) 0.29 (-77.52%)
> Mean 4 7.08 ( 0.00%) 42.38 (498.59%) 0.22 (-96.89%)
> Mean 5 193.54 ( 0.00%) 483.41 (149.77%) 0.41 (-99.79%)
> Mean 6 151.12 ( 0.00%) 198.22 ( 31.17%) 0.42 (-99.72%)
> Mean 7 115.38 ( 0.00%) 160.29 ( 38.92%) 0.58 (-99.50%)
> Mean 8 108.65 ( 0.00%) 138.96 ( 27.90%) 0.44 (-99.60%)
> Range 1 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> Range 2 5.00 ( 0.00%) 6.00 ( 20.00%) 2.00 (-60.00%)
> Range 3 10.00 ( 0.00%) 17.00 ( 70.00%) 9.00 (-10.00%)
> Range 4 256.00 ( 0.00%) 1001.00 (291.02%) 5.00 (-98.05%)
> Range 5 456.00 ( 0.00%) 1226.00 (168.86%) 6.00 (-98.68%)
> Range 6 298.00 ( 0.00%) 294.00 ( -1.34%) 8.00 (-97.32%)
> Range 7 192.00 ( 0.00%) 220.00 ( 14.58%) 7.00 (-96.35%)
> Range 8 171.00 ( 0.00%) 163.00 ( -4.68%) 8.00 (-95.32%)
> Stddev 1 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%) 0.00 ( 0.00%)
> Stddev 2 0.72 ( 0.00%) 0.85 (-17.99%) 0.29 ( 59.72%)
> Stddev 3 1.42 ( 0.00%) 1.90 (-34.22%) 1.12 ( 21.19%)
> Stddev 4 33.83 ( 0.00%) 127.26 (-276.15%) 0.79 ( 97.65%)
> Stddev 5 92.08 ( 0.00%) 225.01 (-144.35%) 1.06 ( 98.85%)
> Stddev 6 64.82 ( 0.00%) 69.43 ( -7.11%) 1.28 ( 98.02%)
> Stddev 7 36.66 ( 0.00%) 49.19 (-34.20%) 1.18 ( 96.79%)
> Stddev 8 30.79 ( 0.00%) 36.23 (-17.64%) 1.06 ( 96.55%)
>
> For example, this is saying that with 8 threads on 3.13-rc3 that the
> difference between the slowest and fastest thread was 171
> records/second.
We aren't blind fairness fetishists, but the noise difference between
v3.4 and v3.13 appears to be staggering, it's a serious anomaly in
itself.
Whatever we did right in v3.4 we want to do in v3.13 as well - or at
least understand it.
I agree that the absolute numbers would probably only be interesting
once v3.13 is fixed to not spread thread performance that wildly
again.
> [...] Because of this bug, I'd be wary about drawing too many
> conclusions about ebizzy performance when the number of threads
> exceed the number of CPUs.
Yes.
Could it be that the v3.13 workload context switches a lot more than
v3.4 workload? That would magnify any TLB range flushing costs and
would make it essentially a secondary symptom, not a primary cause of
the regression. (I'm only guessing blindly here though.)
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-12-16 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-12-13 20:01 [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2 Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 20:01 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86: mm: Clean up inconsistencies when flushing TLB ranges Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 20:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] x86: mm: Account for TLB flushes only when debugging Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 20:01 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86: mm: Change tlb_flushall_shift for IvyBridge Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 20:01 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86: mm: Eliminate redundant page table walk during TLB range flushing Mel Gorman
2013-12-13 21:16 ` [PATCH 0/4] Fix ebizzy performance regression due to X86 TLB range flush v2 Linus Torvalds
2013-12-13 22:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2013-12-16 10:39 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-16 17:17 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-17 9:55 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-15 15:55 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-15 16:17 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-15 18:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2013-12-16 11:16 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-16 10:24 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2013-12-16 12:59 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-16 13:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-17 9:21 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-17 9:26 ` Peter Zijlstra
2013-12-17 11:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-17 14:32 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-17 14:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-17 17:54 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-18 10:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-19 14:24 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-19 16:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-20 11:13 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-20 11:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-20 12:00 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-20 12:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2013-12-20 13:55 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-18 7:28 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-12-19 14:34 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-20 15:51 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-12-20 16:44 ` Mel Gorman
2013-12-21 15:49 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20131216102439.GA21624@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alex.shi@linaro.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).