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=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 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 8BE69C606B0 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:39:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AB72086D for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2019 02:39:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727065AbfGICjX (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:39:23 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:35075 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725941AbfGICjW (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jul 2019 22:39:22 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jul 2019 19:39:22 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,468,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="165631313" Received: from xingzhen-mobl1.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.239.196.152]) ([10.239.196.152]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 08 Jul 2019 19:39:21 -0700 Subject: Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression To: Trond Myklebust , "rong.a.chen@intel.com" Cc: "lkp@01.org" , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20190520055434.GZ31424@shao2-debian> <9a07c589f955e5af5acc0fa09a16a3256089e764.camel@hammerspace.com> <9753a9a4a82943f6aacc2bfb0f93efc5f96bcaa5.camel@hammerspace.com> <2bbe636a-14f1-4592-d1f9-a9f765a02939@linux.intel.com> <81fb0e7d-1879-9267-83da-4671fec50920@linux.intel.com> From: Xing Zhengjun Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:39:20 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Trond, On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote: > I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As far > as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be entirely > contained in the NUMA section of your results. > IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead due to NUMA. I've been > asking whether or not that is a correct interpretation of the numbers > you published. Thanks for your feedback. I used the same hardware and the same test parameters to test the two commits: e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()") 0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use iov_iter()") If it is caused by NUMA, why only commit 0472e47660 throughput is decreased? The filesystem we test is NFS, commit 0472e47660 is related with the network, could you help to check if have any other clues for the regression. Thanks. -- Zhengjun Xing