From: Cleber Rosa <crosa@redhat.com>
To: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: "Alex Bennée" <alex.bennee@linaro.org>,
qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, "Richard Henderson" <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] 2x-3x tcg performance regression on ppc64 (maybe others)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 16:53:30 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae28cefe-84fb-6c4e-0452-55b717726b2b@redhat.com> (raw)
While working on the "boot_linux_console.py" tests, after a given
rebase, I noticed that the ppc64 specific test began timing out. The
original timeout set to the test was 60 seconds, and it "always" had
room to spare when running either on my system, or on Travis CI.
Then, Alex mentioned that specific test timing out on his "slow"
system[1]. I did some further investigation and found out that commit
f7b78602f might have been responsible for a significant slowdown,
and maybe was also affecting his execution.
Getting straight to the point, this is the ppc64 "boot linux console"
test, running 10 times, on top my latest rebase (e8977901b, that
includes f7b78602f).
...
(01/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(63.07 s)
(02/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(64.00 s)
(03/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(62.93 s)
(04/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(64.01 s)
(05/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(63.13 s)
(06/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(64.65 s)
(07/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(63.25 s)
(08/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(66.77 s)
(09/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(65.07 s)
(10/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(63.55 s)
...
The exact branch I used for the results above can be seen at:
- https://github.com/clebergnu/qemu/tree/regression_tcg_ppc64
Then, with f7b78602f reverted:
(01/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.54 s)
(02/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(21.06 s)
(03/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.81 s)
(04/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(21.00 s)
(05/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.37 s)
(06/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.40 s)
(07/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.36 s)
(08/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.39 s)
(09/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.39 s)
(10/10) boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries: PASS
(20.38 s)
The exact branch I used for the results above can be seen at:
- https://github.com/clebergnu/qemu/tree/regression_tcg_ppc64_revert
Even though there's a lot more noise involved, similar results can be
seen on Travis-CI:
- https://travis-ci.org/clebergnu/qemu/builds/487607293#L3035
(04/16)
/home/travis/build/clebergnu/qemu/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries:
PASS (22.21 s)
- https://travis-ci.org/clebergnu/qemu/builds/487606849#L3035
(04/16)
/home/travis/build/clebergnu/qemu/tests/acceptance/boot_linux_console.py:BootLinuxConsole.test_ppc64_pseries:
PASS (11.27 s)
The reasons for the extra noise include:
1) Those tests download the kernel images
2) They are run only once
3) They run on shared infrastructure
Based on Travis-CI runs alone, it's hard to determine if there was any
other significant regression (or improvement?) for other targets. I'm
posting this early, but if I come up with more relevant information,
follow up here.
Regards,
- Cleber.
---
[1] - https://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg589497.html
next reply other threads:[~2019-02-01 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-01 21:53 Cleber Rosa [this message]
2019-02-02 0:09 ` [Qemu-devel] 2x-3x tcg performance regression on ppc64 (maybe others) Richard Henderson
2019-02-05 8:37 ` [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] " Howard Spoelstra
2019-02-05 13:45 ` Peter Maydell
2019-02-05 14:47 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2019-02-05 15:08 ` Peter Maydell
2019-02-05 15:11 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
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=ae28cefe-84fb-6c4e-0452-55b717726b2b@redhat.com \
--to=crosa@redhat.com \
--cc=alex.bennee@linaro.org \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-ppc@nongnu.org \
--cc=rth@twiddle.net \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).