From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753680AbcKIMm3 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:42:29 -0500
Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:51439 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932434AbcKIMmR (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 9 Nov 2016 07:42:17 -0500
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 13:42:14 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, tipbuild@zytor.com, lkp@01.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [x86/copy_user]  adb402cd14: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 -12.7% regression
Message-ID: <20161109124214.sjasqcurv6gi64ol@pd.tnic>
References: <20161107025038.GE21529@yexl-desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20161107025038.GE21529@yexl-desktop>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:50:38AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> Greeting,
> 
> FYI, we noticed a -12.7% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> 
> 
> commit adb402cd1461eef6e1a21db4532a3b9e6a6be853 ("x86/copy_user: Unify the code by removing the 64-bit asm _copy_*_user() variants")
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git x86/asm
> 
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 8 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 870 @ 2.93GHz with 4G memory
> with following parameters:
> 
> 	test: poll1
> 	cpufreq_governor: performance

...

> # Lock Debugging (spinlocks, mutexes, etc...)
> #
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_RT_MUTEXES is not set
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK is not set
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES is not set
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_WW_MUTEX_SLOWPATH is not set
> # CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC is not set
> # CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING is not set
> # CONFIG_LOCK_STAT is not set
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So Mel says that this might be the culprit for the observed
change in perf. Can you please rerun your test without that
CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP thing?

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.