From: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
To: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>
Cc: <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>, <lkp@intel.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <ying.huang@intel.com>,
<feng.tang@intel.com>, <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
<mingo@redhat.com>, <will@kernel.org>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<longman@redhat.com>, <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
<xiexiuqi@huawei.com>, <liwei391@huawei.com>,
<oliver.sang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/osq_lock: Avoid false sharing in optimistic_spin_node
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2024 18:08:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202401051804.77722270-oliver.sang@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231222121040.2635879-1-zengheng4@huawei.com>
Hello,
kernel test robot noticed a 15.3% improvement of fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_72_bufferedio.works/sec on:
commit: 511ac0a137f4211f42aa2ba168e50550b703bb7c ("[PATCH v2] locking/osq_lock: Avoid false sharing in optimistic_spin_node")
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Zeng-Heng/locking-osq_lock-Avoid-false-sharing-in-optimistic_spin_node/20231222-200921
base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git a51749ab34d9e5dec548fe38ede7e01e8bb26454
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231222121040.2635879-1-zengheng4@huawei.com/
patch subject: [PATCH v2] locking/osq_lock: Avoid false sharing in optimistic_spin_node
testcase: fxmark
test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Ice Lake) with 128G memory
parameters:
disk: 1SSD
media: ssd
test: DWOM
fstype: xfs
directio: bufferedio
cpufreq_governor: performance
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240105/202401051804.77722270-oliver.sang@intel.com
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/directio/disk/fstype/kconfig/media/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
gcc-12/performance/bufferedio/1SSD/xfs/x86_64-rhel-8.3/ssd/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp5/DWOM/fxmark
commit:
a51749ab34 ("locking/mutex: Document that mutex_unlock() is non-atomic")
511ac0a137 ("locking/osq_lock: Avoid false sharing in optimistic_spin_node")
a51749ab34d9e5de 511ac0a137f4211f42aa2ba168e
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
19727 ± 6% -13.5% 17073 ± 6% vmstat.system.cs
19254 ± 7% -13.4% 16678 ± 7% perf-stat.i.context-switches
19499 ± 6% -13.6% 16851 ± 6% perf-stat.ps.context-switches
105.12 ± 13% +115.9% 227.00 ± 9% perf-c2c.DRAM.local
5028 ± 2% -9.1% 4571 ± 2% perf-c2c.DRAM.remote
3526 ± 3% -13.8% 3040 ± 3% perf-c2c.HITM.remote
77565522 ± 2% +11.2% 86238276 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_18_bufferedio.works
1551311 ± 2% +11.2% 1724766 ± 3% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_18_bufferedio.works/sec
61955316 +12.3% 69564863 fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_36_bufferedio.works
1239107 +12.3% 1391298 fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_36_bufferedio.works/sec
2.21 ± 4% +9.2% 2.41 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_4_bufferedio.user_sec
1.10 ± 4% +9.3% 1.20 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_4_bufferedio.user_util
46595523 +16.2% 54146121 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_54_bufferedio.works
931911 +16.2% 1082933 ± 2% fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_54_bufferedio.works/sec
44518641 +15.3% 51332276 fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_72_bufferedio.works
890372 +15.3% 1026646 fxmark.ssd_xfs_DWOM_72_bufferedio.works/sec
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.
--
0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/wiki
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-01-05 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-12-22 12:10 [PATCH v2] locking/osq_lock: Avoid false sharing in optimistic_spin_node Zeng Heng
2023-12-22 12:40 ` David Laight
2023-12-23 8:54 ` Zeng Heng
2023-12-23 13:06 ` David Laight
2024-01-05 10:08 ` kernel test robot [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=202401051804.77722270-oliver.sang@intel.com \
--to=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=boqun.feng@gmail.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liwei391@huawei.com \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=xiexiuqi@huawei.com \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.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