From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754743Ab3KEOnk (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:43:40 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:42683 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754551Ab3KEOnj (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 09:43:39 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,640,1378882800"; d="scan'208";a="422597165" Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 22:43:43 +0800 From: Yuanhan Liu To: Tim Chen Cc: Davidlohr Bueso , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to rwlock_t Message-ID: <20131105144343.GD8860@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> References: <1383292467-28922-1-git-send-email-yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com> <20131101080135.GB25547@gmail.com> <20131101081159.GB12829@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <20131101082146.GA27021@gmail.com> <20131101101643.GC30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <1383362113.2444.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> <20131104035920.GH30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> <1383615840.11046.265.camel@schen9-DESK> <20131105031043.GI30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131105031043.GI30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 11:10:43AM +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 05:44:00PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > * Yuanhan Liu wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against > > > > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree? > > > > > > > > > > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest > > > > > > version. > > > > > > > > > > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread: > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some > > > > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are > > > > > finished): > > > > > > > > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on? > > > > > > I queued jobs on 5 testboxes: > > > - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server > > > - lkp-ib03: 48 core Ivybridge server > > > - lkp-sb03: 32 core Sandybridge server > > > - lkp-nex04: 64 core NHM server > > > - lkp-a04: Atom server > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d > > > > > ------------------------ ------------------------ > > > > > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > > > > > +4.3% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test > > > > > +2.2% lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared > > > > > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what > > > > these percentages represent? > > > > > > v3.12-rc7 fe001e3de090e179f95d > > > ------------------------ ------------------------ > > > -9.3% brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > > > .... > > > .... > > > -2.6% TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > > > > > The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression > > > at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance > > > optimizations patch set. > > > > Yunahan, thanks for the data. This I assume is with the entire rwsem > > v8 patchset. > > Yes, it is; 9 patches in total. > > > Any idea of the run variation on the workload? > > Your concern is right. The variation is quite big on the brickland1/micro/aim7/shared > testcase. > > * - v3.12-rc7 > O - fe001e3de090e179f95d > > brickland1/micro/aim7/shared: aim7.2000.jobs-per-min > > 320000 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ > | | > 310000 ++ .*......... | > | .... ....... | > 300000 ++ .... ....... | > | ... ...... | > 290000 ++ .... ...| > | .... * > 280000 ++ ... | > | .... | > 270000 ++.... | > *. O > 260000 O+ | > | O | > 250000 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ > Tim, Please ignore this "regression", it disappears when I run that testcase 6 times both for v3.12-rc7 and fe001e3de090e179f95d. I guess 2000 users is a bit small for 120 core IVB server. I may try to increase the user count and do test again to see how it will behavior with your patches applied. Sorry for the inconvenience. --yliu