From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com>,
lkp@01.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [locks] 7f3697e24d: +35.1% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 08:39:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160201133947.GA28308@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h9hxp063.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 10:52:20AM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> Jeff Layton <jeff.layton@primarydata.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 09:32:19 +0800
> > kernel test robot <ying.huang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >>
> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >> commit 7f3697e24dc3820b10f445a4a7d914fc356012d1 ("locks: fix unlock when fcntl_setlk races with a close")
> >>
> >>
> >> =========================================================================================
> >> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >> gcc-4.9/performance/x86_64-rhel/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/lkp-snb01/lock1/will-it-scale
> >>
> >> commit:
> >> 9189922675ecca0fab38931d86b676e9d79602dc
> >> 7f3697e24dc3820b10f445a4a7d914fc356012d1
> >>
> >> 9189922675ecca0f 7f3697e24dc3820b10f445a4a7
> >> ---------------- --------------------------
> >> %stddev %change %stddev
> >> \ | \
> >> 2376432 ± 0% +2.1% 2427484 ± 0% will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> >> 807889 ± 0% +35.1% 1091496 ± 4% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> >> 22.08 ± 2% +89.1% 41.75 ± 5% will-it-scale.time.user_time
> >> 1238371 ± 14% +100.4% 2481345 ± 39% cpuidle.C1E-SNB.time
> >> 3098 ± 57% -66.6% 1035 ±171% numa-numastat.node1.other_node
> >> 379.25 ± 8% -21.4% 298.00 ± 12% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_alloc_batch
> >> 22.08 ± 2% +89.1% 41.75 ± 5% time.user_time
> >> 1795 ± 4% +7.5% 1930 ± 2% vmstat.system.cs
> >> 0.54 ± 5% +136.9% 1.28 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.___might_sleep.__might_sleep.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file
> >> 1.65 ± 57% +245.2% 5.70 ± 29% perf-profile.cycles.__fdget_raw.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 1.58 ± 59% +248.3% 5.50 ± 31% perf-profile.cycles.__fget.__fget_light.__fdget_raw.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 1.62 ± 58% +246.3% 5.63 ± 30% perf-profile.cycles.__fget_light.__fdget_raw.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 5.88 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.__memset.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 2.50 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.__memset.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk
> >> 1.29 ± 4% +138.8% 3.09 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.__memset.locks_alloc_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.47 ± 9% +144.4% 1.16 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.__might_fault.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.37 ± 12% +140.3% 0.90 ± 9% perf-profile.cycles.__might_sleep.__might_fault.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.86 ± 6% +137.7% 2.05 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.__might_sleep.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file
> >> 0.61 ± 14% +56.8% 0.95 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles.__might_sleep.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 39.84 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 16.44 ± 3% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 1.77 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles._raw_spin_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 59.34 ± 1% -72.4% 16.36 ± 33% perf-profile.cycles._raw_spin_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.46 ± 11% +144.9% 1.13 ± 19% perf-profile.cycles.avc_has_perm.inode_has_perm.file_has_perm.selinux_file_fcntl.security_file_fcntl
> >> 0.87 ± 6% +103.2% 1.77 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.avc_has_perm.inode_has_perm.file_has_perm.selinux_file_lock.security_file_lock
> >> 0.81 ± 4% +135.7% 1.90 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.copy_user_generic_string.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 41.86 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.do_lock_file_wait.part.29.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.88 ± 6% +127.8% 2.00 ± 9% perf-profile.cycles.entry_SYSCALL_64
> >> 0.86 ± 4% +122.6% 1.92 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs
> >> 84.98 ± 0% -9.1% 77.20 ± 2% perf-profile.cycles.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.76 ± 10% +142.1% 1.84 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles.file_has_perm.selinux_file_fcntl.security_file_fcntl.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 1.35 ± 4% +106.3% 2.78 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.file_has_perm.selinux_file_lock.security_file_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 0.89 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.flock_to_posix_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 6.90 ± 4% -48.6% 3.55 ± 27% perf-profile.cycles.fput.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.51 ± 10% +140.5% 1.23 ± 16% perf-profile.cycles.inode_has_perm.isra.31.file_has_perm.selinux_file_fcntl.security_file_fcntl.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.98 ± 4% +97.7% 1.93 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.inode_has_perm.isra.31.file_has_perm.selinux_file_lock.security_file_lock.fcntl_setlk
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 6.56 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 2.75 ± 4% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk
> >> 1.53 ± 7% +119.7% 3.37 ± 13% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_alloc.locks_alloc_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 1.79 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_free.locks_free_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 0.46 ± 14% +257.0% 1.66 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_free.locks_free_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.40 ± 7% +158.6% 1.05 ± 17% perf-profile.cycles.kmem_cache_free.locks_free_lock.locks_dispose_list.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 0.96 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.lg_local_lock.locks_insert_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 14.69 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 6.38 ± 3% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.locks_alloc_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 3.28 ± 6% +127.1% 7.45 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.locks_alloc_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 9.75 ± 13% perf-profile.cycles.locks_delete_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 3.61 ± 1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.locks_delete_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 1.84 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.locks_dispose_list.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 2.42 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.locks_free_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 1.00 ± 3% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.locks_free_lock.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.63 ± 11% +224.1% 2.05 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.locks_free_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 1.22 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles.locks_free_lock.locks_dispose_list.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 6.17 ± 15% perf-profile.cycles.locks_insert_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk
> >> 2.31 ± 6% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.locks_insert_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 8.96 ± 13% perf-profile.cycles.locks_unlink_lock_ctx.locks_delete_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait
> >> 3.27 ± 1% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.locks_unlink_lock_ctx.locks_delete_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk
> >> 53.88 ± 1% -79.7% 10.92 ± 46% perf-profile.cycles.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 2.75 ± 0% +183.3% 7.79 ± 13% perf-profile.cycles.put_pid.locks_unlink_lock_ctx.locks_delete_lock_ctx.__posix_lock_file.vfs_lock_file
> >> 1.11 ± 9% +137.2% 2.63 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles.security_file_fcntl.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 1.69 ± 4% +118.2% 3.69 ± 11% perf-profile.cycles.security_file_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.91 ± 9% +139.0% 2.17 ± 14% perf-profile.cycles.selinux_file_fcntl.security_file_fcntl.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 1.39 ± 4% +114.6% 2.97 ± 10% perf-profile.cycles.selinux_file_lock.security_file_lock.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 0.00 ± -1% +Inf% 41.12 ± 12% perf-profile.cycles.vfs_lock_file.do_lock_file_wait.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 17.04 ± 3% -100.0% 0.00 ± -1% perf-profile.cycles.vfs_lock_file.fcntl_setlk.sys_fcntl.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> >> 34.75 ±148% +132.4% 80.75 ± 82% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load.8
> >> 15.00 ± 9% +198.3% 44.75 ± 72% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.21
> >> 25.00 ± 29% +574.0% 168.50 ± 78% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.9
> >> 38.47 ± 5% +29.1% 49.65 ± 26% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
> >> 63.17 ± 10% +44.3% 91.16 ± 36% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.stddev
> >> 893865 ± 12% -12.5% 782455 ± 0% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.25
> >> 18.25 ± 26% +52.1% 27.75 ± 25% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_load_avg.9
> >> -57635 ±-68% -196.4% 55548 ±130% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.1
> >> -802264 ±-25% -29.5% -565458 ±-49% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.8
> >> -804662 ±-25% -29.4% -567811 ±-48% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.min
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.9% 1614 ± 28% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.0
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.9% 1614 ± 28% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.1
> >> 1228 ± 5% +30.3% 1601 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.10
> >> 1228 ± 5% +30.4% 1601 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.11
> >> 1228 ± 5% +30.3% 1601 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.12
> >> 1229 ± 5% +30.0% 1598 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.13
> >> 1228 ± 5% +30.1% 1598 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.14
> >> 1229 ± 5% +30.0% 1598 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.15
> >> 1226 ± 5% +30.3% 1598 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.16
> >> 1226 ± 5% +30.2% 1597 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.17
> >> 1227 ± 5% +30.1% 1595 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.18
> >> 1227 ± 5% +29.4% 1588 ± 26% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.19
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.4% 1609 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.2
> >> 1222 ± 5% +29.9% 1587 ± 26% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.20
> >> 1223 ± 5% +24.2% 1519 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.21
> >> 1223 ± 5% +23.8% 1515 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.22
> >> 1223 ± 5% +23.9% 1515 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.23
> >> 1223 ± 5% +23.9% 1515 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.24
> >> 1223 ± 5% +23.5% 1511 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.25
> >> 1224 ± 5% +23.5% 1512 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.26
> >> 1223 ± 5% +23.1% 1506 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.27
> >> 1223 ± 5% +22.5% 1499 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.28
> >> 1224 ± 5% +22.5% 1499 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.29
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.3% 1607 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.3
> >> 1223 ± 5% +22.2% 1495 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.30
> >> 1224 ± 5% +22.0% 1493 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.31
> >> 1234 ± 5% +30.0% 1604 ± 28% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.4
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.0% 1604 ± 28% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.5
> >> 1231 ± 5% +30.3% 1604 ± 28% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.6
> >> 1233 ± 5% +30.0% 1603 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.7
> >> 1231 ± 5% +30.1% 1601 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.8
> >> 1228 ± 5% +30.3% 1601 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.9
> >> 1228 ± 5% +27.8% 1569 ± 24% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.avg
> >> 1246 ± 5% +30.7% 1628 ± 27% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.max
> >> 1212 ± 5% +22.2% 1481 ± 19% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg.min
> >> 15.00 ± 9% +198.3% 44.75 ± 72% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg_contrib.21
> >> 25.00 ± 29% +574.0% 168.50 ± 78% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg_contrib.9
> >> 38.53 ± 5% +29.0% 49.71 ± 26% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg_contrib.avg
> >> 63.34 ± 10% +44.1% 91.30 ± 36% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.tg_load_avg_contrib.stddev
> >> 532.25 ± 2% +8.5% 577.50 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.15
> >> 210.75 ± 14% -14.4% 180.50 ± 4% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.29
> >> 450.00 ± 22% +50.7% 678.00 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.9
> >> 955572 ± 4% -10.2% 857813 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.6
> >> 23.99 ± 60% -76.2% 5.71 ± 24% sched_debug.cpu.clock.stddev
> >> 23.99 ± 60% -76.2% 5.71 ± 24% sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.stddev
> >> 2840 ± 37% -47.4% 1492 ± 65% sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.25
> >> 34.75 ±148% +132.4% 80.75 ± 82% sched_debug.cpu.load.8
> >> 61776 ± 7% -7.1% 57380 ± 0% sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.25
> >> 6543 ± 2% +20.4% 7879 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.0
> >> 5256 ± 23% +177.1% 14566 ± 52% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.27
> >> 7915 ± 3% +8.7% 8605 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.avg
> >> -0.25 ±-519% +1900.0% -5.00 ±-24% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.12
> >> 2.00 ± 93% -125.0% -0.50 ±-300% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.24
> >> 17468 ± 14% +194.3% 51413 ± 75% sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.15
> >> 2112 ± 2% +20.8% 2552 ± 11% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.0
> >> 2103 ± 34% +219.0% 6709 ± 55% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.27
> >> 3159 ± 3% +8.2% 3418 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.avg
> >> 1323 ± 64% -72.7% 361.50 ± 15% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.23
> >> 3264 ± 12% +94.4% 6347 ± 41% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.27
> >> 3860 ± 3% +9.0% 4208 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.avg
> >> 2358 ± 3% +28.7% 3035 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.0
> >> 1110 ± 22% +54.6% 1716 ± 28% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.27
> >> 1814 ± 8% +16.1% 2106 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.stddev
> >>
> >>
> >> lkp-snb01: Sandy Bridge-EP
> >> Memory: 32G
> >>
> >> will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> >>
> >> 1.2e+06 ++---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >> | O |
> >> 1.15e+06 O+O O O O O O O O |
> >> 1.1e+06 ++ |
> >> | O O O O O OO |
> >> 1.05e+06 ++ O O |
> >> 1e+06 ++ |
> >> | |
> >> 950000 ++ |
> >> 900000 ++ |
> >> | |
> >> 850000 ++ |
> >> 800000 *+*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*. .*.*. *.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*
> >> | * * |
> >> 750000 ++---------------------------------------------------------------+
> >>
> >>
> >> will-it-scale.time.user_time
> >>
> >> 50 ++---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >> | |
> >> 45 ++ O O O O O O |
> >> O O O O |
> >> | O O O O O |
> >> 40 ++ O O O O |
> >> | |
> >> 35 ++ |
> >> | |
> >> 30 ++ |
> >> | |
> >> | * |
> >> 25 ++ + + |
> >> *.*.*.*..*.* *.*.*..*.*.*.*.*.*.*..*.*.*.*.*.*.*..*.*.*.*.*.*..*.*.*.*
> >> 20 ++---------------------------------------------------------------------+
> >>
> >>
> >> [*] bisect-good sample
> >> [O] bisect-bad sample
> >>
> >> To reproduce:
> >>
> >> git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git
> >> cd lkp-tests
> >> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> >> bin/lkp run job.yaml
> >>
> >>
> >> Disclaimer:
> >> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> >> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> >> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Ying Huang
> >
> > Thanks...
> >
> > Huh...I'm stumped on this one. If anything I would have expected better
> > performance with this patch since we don't even take the file_lock or
> > do the fcheck in the F_UNLCK codepath now, or when there is an error.
> >
> > I'll see if I can reproduce it on my own test rig, but I'd welcome
> > ideas of where and how this performance regression could have crept in.
>
> This is a performance increase instead of performance regression.
Could you provide any help reading the above graphs? For example, is
the "bisect-good" case before or after the given commit? And are lower
or higher numbers better on the graph?
Thanks for doing this testing. I'm impressed that it's happening and
curious to learn anything more about it.
--b.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-02-01 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-29 1:32 [lkp] [locks] 7f3697e24d: +35.1% will-it-scale.per_thread_ops kernel test robot
2016-01-29 2:38 ` Jeff Layton
2016-01-29 2:52 ` [LKP] " Huang, Ying
2016-01-29 12:13 ` Jeff Layton
2016-02-01 13:39 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
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=20160201133947.GA28308@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=dvyukov@google.com \
--cc=jeff.layton@primarydata.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
/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