From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0233EC433ED for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:44:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2E55616EB for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 00:44:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230202AbhEKAp1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 20:45:27 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-f172.google.com ([209.85.166.172]:37538 "EHLO mail-il1-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229961AbhEKAp1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 20:45:27 -0400 Received: by mail-il1-f172.google.com with SMTP id j12so15727971ils.4 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:44:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=5Sdpg7BKVKHe73lr7vH369AAvO0wDzjl/hPWMLAHmqA=; b=lnvCkkS9IzFFTNTk6l6A8vKHEW5VniMOmSI16kNO9CrMH0sv9yUtXli8gu+ExdDS2I sDw+ds+aD7cPrVYugfimtUx9/giqluCNpI6m4ZkSHefeP1CZ6/On7wG2Ev0CxQYdfzvs 4smIx4SxaETsazgdrQLla3i/l6xZvrlGwyhk5buxviG/4LxNl1K0/Cp4ppu8n2ct8mfg Fur6m0unSeqbZKvtr/yCtTLwkhA6WYbNcVS3+4NBtk+9RhZRxGDlEggbY2xH38b//Kxm EiiV4Pijdc8Y4rV8hvV2PEZte8tJV/rdUJvfAFj9PGZZdfbUUlxa5BqjrgFJOCOEgI5I 8IEA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5317sPApHHfyz7WXtsePo1Vz7YbaubhG12ZeXd/57xRvGTylk9Tm /elklqh+naCY8TJi587lrYQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyAGMx0vh8Bg0xsTItGzGRKXS2AJoBmW7vqQC+8NI7cmB5+YKCGluM53krE+LmETSQMNh6UTA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:dec:: with SMTP id m12mr23770714ilj.288.1620693860538; Mon, 10 May 2021 17:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (243.199.238.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.238.199.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c2sm9001429ilj.54.2021.05.10.17.44.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 May 2021 17:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 00:44:18 +0000 From: Dennis Zhou To: Roman Gushchin Cc: Oliver Sang , Pratik Sampat , LKML , "lkp@lists.01.org" , "lkp@intel.com" , "ying.huang@intel.com" , "feng.tang@intel.com" , "zhengjun.xing@intel.com" Subject: Re: [percpu] ace7e70901: aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec -2.3% regression Message-ID: References: <20210427073448.GD32408@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <40632FBD-8874-4B6C-A945-F2EBC96CF12B@fb.com> <20210507030606.GA27263@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 05:34:38PM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:08:03PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote: > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:22AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:06:06AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > > > hi Roman, > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:54:59AM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > Ping > > > > > > > > sorry for late. > > > > > > > > the new patch makes the performance a little better but still has > > > > 1.9% regression comparing to > > > > f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation") > > > > > > Hi Oliver! > > > > > > Thank you for testing it! > > > > > > Btw, can you, please, confirm that the regression is coming specifically > > > from ace7e70901 ("percpu: use reclaim threshold instead of running for every page")? > > > I do see *some* regression in my setup, but the data is very noisy, so I'm not sure > > > I can confirm it. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Thanks Oliver and Roman. If this is the case, I'll drop the final patch > > and just merge up to f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk > > depopulation") into for-next as this is v5.14 anyway. > > I doubt it's a good idea. I reran the test with some debug added and it looks > like it doesn't trigger any depopulation at all. Everything else looked sane > too. > Well that's awkward... > Dropping a reasonable patch doing a good thing without any understandinding how > it affects (or even can affect in theory) some benchmark sounds like a bad idea. > We'll never learn this. It could be that the regression is caused my some > tiny alignment difference or something like this, so any other change can > trigger it too (I can be totally wrong here, but I don't have any better > explanation either). > So I'm not 100% thrilled with the final patch anyway. Particularly the lock dancing I'd rather figure something out a little cleaner. I'm going to take some time later this week and sort it out. If I can't think of anthing better I'll just reapply the final patch. I've currently merged everything up into the last patch for-5.14. Should at least give us some very preliminary testing. > Btw, do we have any similar tests? > > Thanks! Thanks, Dennis