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 F00F1C433ED for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 02:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBD0C61409 for ; Tue, 11 May 2021 02:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230016AbhEKCxt (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 22:53:49 -0400 Received: from mail-il1-f180.google.com ([209.85.166.180]:42518 "EHLO mail-il1-f180.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229637AbhEKCxs (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 May 2021 22:53:48 -0400 Received: by mail-il1-f180.google.com with SMTP id m7so6564441ilg.9 for ; Mon, 10 May 2021 19:52:41 -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=iU0M0ZbqIDJLXqwee/1fIbtlNZGkqZtflowWY8qsynI=; b=aO4W/4+GJ7TgtZZNVku0mcaxmwo/KmwS+V+saJFW58lPSy0G77B9HerZ6f6ItOuTLe kPEyyJ8V+2D9h1Qr7fRvIlH49Na3OBODdvqsZtHufcWZ8pfkf83w3oabrD47/ECZW4ml t1gYO79um4zLdr44T4zxYQL8IY4wpWuQAocZtOCeJTazhHOYrxC5vPRwJULT1Nf+bnpi 8n+MpPfMkuHm4xoArbu/ID45LhXxRC/Uh7Q3UT+XL/7kHXjFIRHD5u+jhpIvbG8USONh MGeFJGNY4QSoeJAYbFxaCia1JrXh55AeKUu/C+Xci7KxxvEk20P9lmxzMz3U7sk1jd+U Pm7A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530TolUjIVBIaSBVTFU4WAPMmiox9b6O9Yz9PIdrT73nPMkgripH kDQ8wo71QEc3z5EU+g5gVEE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw8LB3Pj1gVC5PGI3RAnY9yz/rooYIzjc5U/OYD9rhYXZPyBTF2GdyOqw+rITTguU2iYBGC/Q== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:1069:: with SMTP id q9mr24648020ilj.217.1620701561192; Mon, 10 May 2021 19:52:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (243.199.238.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.238.199.243]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10sm6102274ios.2.2021.05.10.19.52.40 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 May 2021 19:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 11 May 2021 02:52:39 +0000 From: Dennis Zhou To: Oliver Sang Cc: Roman Gushchin , 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> <20210511022614.GB8539@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210511022614.GB8539@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:26:14AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > 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. > > > > Oliver, is there a way to trigger the kernel test robot for a specific > > test? > > sorry for late. No worries. Thanks for all you work! > not sure what kind of specific test you want robot to do? > if you mean for-next branch, if the branch is monitored by kernel test robot, > after merge, it will be tested by robot automatically and the bisect will be > triggered if there is still regression. In this case, we believe there is a regression in "aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec". I know my branches are monitored (hence we suspect this regression), but it would be nice to be able to kick off a test with a patch or set of patches on top to validate that the regression is fixed on your hardware configuration. Unfortunately I don't have a 100+ core machine lying around :P. Sorry for the additional questions, but is there a time frame that the kernel robot is expected scrape over my tree / what test suites get run against any particular branch? > I found the ace7e70901 has already been dropped from original branch (dennis-percpu/for-5.14), Yeah I have temporarily dropped it to get the others into for-next for now. I'll spend some time later this week digging deeper into this. > and we have data for this branch as below. from data, the f183324133 (current > branch tip) doesn't introduce regression comparing 5.12-rc7 in our tests. > > f183324133ea5 percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation 103673.09 102188.39 104325.06 104038.4 102908.57 104057.06 > 1c29a3ceaf5f0 percpu: use pcpu_free_slot instead of pcpu_nr_slots - 1 104777.31 102225.93 101657.6 > 8ea2e1e35d1eb percpu: factor out pcpu_check_block_hint() 102290.78 101853.87 102541.65 > d434405aaab7d Linux 5.12-rc7 102103.06 102248.12 101906.81 103033.13 102043.33 > Thanks, Dennis