linux-pm.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>
To: Dirk Brandewie <dirk.brandewie@gmail.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>,
	Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com>,
	dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	"cpufreq@vger.kernel.org" <cpufreq@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance regression in v3.14
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 11:00:51 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140521090051.GO21412@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <536A3EE9.5050409@intel.com>

On Wed, May 07, 2014 at 07:10:49AM -0700, Dirk Brandewie wrote:
> On 05/06/2014 10:40 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Cc'ing Dirk who is taking care of intel-pstate driver.
> >
> 
> Thanks Viresh I had seen this thread.
> 
> I am looking into it

Any updates on this, Dirk? 3.14 is still basically unusable with the
intel_pstate driver.

Any fixes or workarounds posted elsewhere that I can apply in the
meantime?

Thanks,
Johan

> > On 6 May 2014 22:05, Johan Hovold <jhovold@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> After updating my main system from v3.13 to v3.14.2, I found that the
> >> git bash-completion was extremely sluggish. Completing a file name would
> >> take roughly six rather than one second on this Haswell machine
> >> (i7-4770). (Other things, such as git rebase, also felt slower, but
> >> the completion issue was much more obvious and easy to measure).
> >>
> >> I managed to reproduce the problem using the following minimal construct
> >>
> >>          cat dmesg.repeat | while read x; do true; done
> >>
> >> where dmesg.repeat is simply dmesg concatenated together to an
> >> equivalent number of lines as produced by git ls-files in the
> >> kernel-source tree root (45k), and where the actual processing of each
> >> line has been removed.
> >>
> >> Most of the time I get:
> >>
> >>          $ time cat dmesg.repeat | while read x; do true; done
> >>
> >>          real    0m6.091s
> >>          user    0m3.674s
> >>          sys     0m2.447s
> >>
> >> but sometimes it only takes one second.
> >>
> >>          $ time cat dmesg.repeat | while read x; do true; done
> >>
> >>          real    0m1.100s
> >>          user    0m0.544s
> >>          sys     0m0.570s
> >>
> >> I don't seem to be able to reproduce the problem on 3.13 where the pipe
> >> always takes about one second to finish.
> >>
> >> Taking all but one core offline seems to make the problem go away, and so
> >> does using the performance rather than powersave governor of the
> >> intel_pstate cpufreq driver (on at least one of two online cores).
> >>
> >> Moving the mouse cursor makes to loop finish faster, and so does
> >> switching to a another terminal to print cpufreq/cpuinfo_cur_freq which
> >> was around cpuinfo_min_freq several times (when tracing, see below).
> >>
> >> I could not reproduce the problem when using perf record, but I can get
> >> function-profile traces using ftrace (in which case the loop takes about
> >> 60 seconds instead of six seconds to finish).
> >>
> >> Comparing the traces I see a lot of functions taking ten times longer to
> >> finish, but I guess that's expected if this is indeed a cpufreq issue.
> >>
> >> Since this is my main machine (and only multi-core machine at the
> >> moment) I'm not able to bisect this myself. And for the same reason I
> >> have not verified that the problem persists in v3.15-rc.
> >>
> >> I don't see any cpufreq patches in the v3.14.3 stable queue nor anything
> >> obviously related and marked for stable in v3.15-rc.
> >>
> >> Any ideas about what might be going on?
> >
> > I tried to take a look at the diff for cpufreq between 3.13 and 3.14.2 and
> > couldn't pin point on any change which might cause it. Don't have a clue
> > of what's going on. I don't know how to help you on this.
> >
> > Normally I test my stuff on a ARM board and I don't remember facing
> > any such behavior there. There might be something wrong with intel-pstate
> > as well..
> >
> > Also, can you try to use acpi-cpufreq instead? And see how that is behaving?
> >
> > --
> > viresh

  reply	other threads:[~2014-05-21  9:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-06 16:35 Performance regression in v3.14 Johan Hovold
2014-05-07  5:40 ` Viresh Kumar
2014-05-07  7:35   ` Johan Hovold
2014-05-07  8:36     ` Romain Francoise
2014-05-07 14:10   ` Dirk Brandewie
2014-05-21  9:00     ` Johan Hovold [this message]
2014-05-28  7:59       ` Johan Hovold
2014-05-28  0:35         ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-28 16:00           ` Doug Smythies
2014-05-28 16:53             ` Yuyang Du
2014-05-30  2:27         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2014-05-30  8:49           ` Johan Hovold
2014-05-30 12:29           ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=20140521090051.GO21412@localhost \
    --to=jhovold@gmail.com \
    --cc=cpufreq@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dirk.brandewie@gmail.com \
    --cc=dirk.j.brandewie@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.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).