From: "David Wang" <00107082@163.com>
To: peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org,
mark.rutland@arm.com, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com,
jolsa@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, irogers@google.com,
adrian.hunter@intel.com, linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Regression or Fix]perf: profiling stats sigificantly changed for aio_write/read(ext4) between 6.7.0-rc1 and 6.6.0
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 12:31:12 +0800 (CST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <449fb8d2.27fb.18bcc190021.Coremail.00107082@163.com> (raw)
Hi,
I was making kernel profiling to identify kernel changes between revisions under the load of fio benchmark,
The profiler use perf_event_open with a cgroup where a fio run a 10minutes stress: fio --randrepeat=1 --ioengine=libaio --direct=1 --name=test --bs=4k --iodepth=64 --size=1G --readwrite=randrw --runtime=600 --numjobs=4 --time_based=1
I notice a ~4% change in the profiling data.
The profiling stat for 6.6.0:
aio_write(54.974% 117153/213108)
ext4_file_write_iter(97.395% 114101/117153)
iomap_dio_rw(91.195% 104054/114101)
__iomap_dio_rw(99.835% 103882/104054)
iomap_dio_bio_iter(68.800% 71471/103882) <<---
blk_finish_plug(22.146% 23006/103882) <<---
iomap_iter(6.161% 6400/103882)
kmalloc_trace(0.850% 883/103882)
kiocb_invalidate_pages(0.205% 213/103882)
invalidate_inode_pages2_range(0.130% 135/103882)
srso_return_thunk(0.109% 113/103882)
And for 6.7.0-rc1
aio_write(54.317% 96039/176813)
ext4_file_write_iter(97.482% 93621/96039)
iomap_dio_rw(91.211% 85393/93621)
__iomap_dio_rw(99.822% 85241/85393)
iomap_dio_bio_iter(64.793% 55230/85241) <<-----
blk_finish_plug(26.446% 22543/85241) <<----
iomap_iter(5.881% 5013/85241)
kmalloc_trace(0.682% 581/85241)
kiocb_invalidate_pages(0.230% 196/85241)
invalidate_inode_pages2_range(0.147% 125/85241)
The iomap_dio_bio_iter samples decrease 4% while blk_finish_plug increase 4%.
I have run a bisect, narrow down to following commit:
commit f06cc667f79909e9175460b167c277b7c64d3df0
Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: Mon Oct 9 23:04:25 2023 +0200
perf: Optimize perf_cgroup_switch()
And after I revert this commit, the profiling stat now almost agree with 6.6.0
aio_write(54.937% 104691/190564)
ext4_file_write_iter(97.586% 102164/104691)
iomap_dio_rw(91.257% 93232/102164)
__iomap_dio_rw(99.819% 93063/93232)
iomap_dio_bio_iter(69.654% 64822/93063) <<------
blk_finish_plug(21.724% 20217/93063) <<----
iomap_iter(5.859% 5453/93063)
kmalloc_trace(0.758% 705/93063)
kiocb_invalidate_pages(0.251% 234/93063)
invalidate_inode_pages2_range(0.134% 125/93063)
I have run several round of tests, mostly during the bisect process, and the ~4% change is consistent.
The profiler I used is an experimental tool, not perf though, I think the behavior changes it detected is legit.
https://github.com/zq-david-wang/linux-tools/blob/main/perf/profiler/profiler.cpp
But I did not notice a significant change in the overhead of perf tracing based on the fio report,
that is why I am not sure whether this is a regression or an improvement....
Just report the change.
Thanks
David Wang
next reply other threads:[~2023-11-14 4:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-14 4:31 David Wang [this message]
2023-11-14 15:20 ` Re:[Regression or Fix]perf: profiling stats sigificantly changed for aio_write/read(ext4) between 6.7.0-rc1 and 6.6.0 David Wang
2023-11-15 10:32 ` [Regression " Peter Zijlstra
2023-11-15 10:59 ` David Wang
2023-11-15 15:48 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-11-15 16:11 ` David Wang
2023-11-15 16:26 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-11-16 4:08 ` David Wang
2023-11-17 21:11 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-11-18 1:46 ` David Wang
2023-11-20 22:59 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-11-21 5:51 ` David Wang
2023-11-15 15:45 ` Namhyung Kim
2023-11-15 16:24 ` David Wang
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=449fb8d2.27fb.18bcc190021.Coremail.00107082@163.com \
--to=00107082@163.com \
--cc=acme@kernel.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
--cc=irogers@google.com \
--cc=jolsa@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=namhyung@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).