From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6206C388F7 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38BBA2417D for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 13:19:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=efficios.com header.i=@efficios.com header.b="XHTQ/X9m" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2899489AbgJVNTS (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:18 -0400 Received: from mail.efficios.com ([167.114.26.124]:45586 "EHLO mail.efficios.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2899481AbgJVNTR (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:17 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBE72ED158; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id nPK9ouAC5Vv1; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 356302ED157; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 mail.efficios.com 356302ED157 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=efficios.com; s=default; t=1603372755; bh=ntLZuZMR4Ga7jdWMbrW5i0nvpfLlBNhKnyFUAwGwNgI=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=XHTQ/X9myePO5fxW8IBnQ0BA9dfiBrDpnN7bZmVTLkMx1VKwlNtr4mNeJ38XHFsrD U/BB2bkSCqHlr3HhhpFF3bXh+HJL4TXVxgUVvYHdviIt3IIQO6BsDB6gV2484lv3r3 nJnVNrLpYFettkMfR8GbtPbGgpSDBVnQUSeifwxOHSFcik2T+rUz615bFIU2i/Rbvl ECSosYhTwBLopd06ZMT3Ev520Ab6h0kJQEdfrIo9Vn9m9Ck+46HDISMHtvcgY1ocLL GY7bkXtLX9ler93GWPcCOjbyz2m307WF3BtnjKivrnHrGKkCS3llHgazsDxMrIna/i KKQR+b8lnPMrQ== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at efficios.com Received: from mail.efficios.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail03.efficios.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id vEllpX-CDr10; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail03.efficios.com (mail03.efficios.com [167.114.26.124]) by mail.efficios.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AFD2ECFD2; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 09:19:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Mathieu Desnoyers To: Xing Zhengjun , Anton Blanchard , anton@ozlabs.org Cc: Rong Chen , Peter Zijlstra , Boqun Feng , linux-kernel , Will Deacon , paulmck , Nicholas Piggin , Andy Lutomirski , Andrew Morton , 0day robot , lkp , zhengjun xing , aubrey li , yu c chen Message-ID: <1597497813.35294.1603372755111.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20201002083311.GK393@shao2-debian> <1183082664.11002.1602082242482.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <7131f8f9-68d1-0277-c770-c10f98a062ec@linux.intel.com> <510309749.29852.1603199662203.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [sched] bdfcae1140: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -37.0% regression MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [167.114.26.124] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3968 (ZimbraWebClient - FF81 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3968) Thread-Topic: bdfcae1140: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -37.0% regression Thread-Index: YJbUcUrA024P7c/g6sWwOrLYCUpVqg== Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ----- On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Xing Zhengjun zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com wrote: [...] > In fact, 0-day just copy the will-it-scale benchmark from the GitHub, if > you think the will-it-scale benchmark has some issues, you can > contribute your idea and help to improve it, later we will update the > will-it-scale benchmark to the new version. This is why I CC'd the maintainer of the will-it-scale github project, Anton Blanchard. My main intent is to report this issue to him, but I have not heard back from him yet. Is this project maintained ? Let me try to add his ozlabs.org address in CC. > For this test case, if we bind the workload to a specific CPU, then it > will hide the scheduler balance issue. In the real world, we seldom bind > the CPU... When you say that you bind the workload to a specific CPU, is that done outside of the will-it-scale testsuite, thus limiting the entire testsuite to a single CPU, or you expect that internally the will-it-scale context-switch1 test gets affined to a single specific CPU/core/hardware thread through use of hwloc ? Thanks, Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com