From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 09:25:51 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87y1amo7w0.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZfDr6qOaMVnyoB8W@pavilion.home>
On Wed, Mar 13 2024 at 00:57, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> So I can reproduce. And after hours staring at traces I haven't really found
> the real cause of this. 1% difference is not always easy to track down.
> But here are some sort of conclusion so far:
>
> _ There is an increase of ksoftirqd use (+13%) but if I boot with threadirqs
> before and after the patch (which means that ksoftirqd is used all the time
> for softirq handling) I still see the performance regression. So this
> shouldn't play a role here.
>
> _ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues of timers on behalf of
> idle CPUs would delay NET_RX softirqs but it doesn't seem to be the case. I
> don't see TIMER vector delaying NET_RX vector after the hierarchical pull
> model, quite the opposite actually, they are less delayed overall.
>
> _ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues would add scheduling
> latency. But it doesn't seem to be the case. Quite the opposite again,
> surprisingly.
>
> _ I have observed that, in average, timers execute later with the hierarchical
> pull model. The following delta:
> time of callback execution - bucket_expiry
> is 3 times higher with the hierarchical pull model. Whether that plays a role
> is unclear. It might still be interesting to investigate.
>
> _ The initial perf profile seem to suggest a big increase of task migration. Is
> it the result of ping-pong wakeup? Does that play a role?
Migration is not cheap. The interesting question is whether this is
caused by remote timer expiry.
Looking at the perf data there are significant changes vs. idle too:
perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.poll_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.cpuidle_idle_call.do_idle
36.91 ± 2% -12.6 24.32 ± 10% -12.3 24.63 ± 5%
That indicates that cpuidle is spending less time in idle polling, which
means that wakeup latency increases. That obviously might be a result of
the timer migration properties.
Do you have traces (before and after) handy to share?
Thanks,
tglx
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-13 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 8:09 [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression kernel test robot
2024-03-04 0:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-04 2:13 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-04 11:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 2:17 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-05 10:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-12 23:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-13 8:25 ` Thomas Gleixner [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=87y1amo7w0.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--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