From: Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -22.7% regression
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 09:20:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bd87e8bd-c918-3f41-0cc5-e2927d91625f@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201102100247.GF22613@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 11/2/2020 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-11-20 17:53:14, Rong Chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/2/20 5:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 02-11-20 17:15:43, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> Greeting,
>>>>
>>>> FYI, we noticed a -22.7% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> commit: bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e19038716f96f5a41 ("mm/memcg: unify swap and memsw page counters")
>>>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>> I really fail to see how this can be anything else than a data structure
>>> layout change. There is one counter less.
>>>
>>> btw. are cgroups configured at all? What would be the configuration?
>>
>> Hi Michal,
>>
>> We used the default configure of cgroups, not sure what configuration you
>> want,
>> could you give me more details? and here is the cgroup info of will-it-scale
>> process:
>>
>> $ cat /proc/3042/cgroup
>> 12:hugetlb:/
>> 11:memory:/system.slice/lkp-bootstrap.service
>
> OK, this means that memory controler is enabled and in use. Btw. do you
> get the original performance if you add one phony page_counter after the
> union?
>
I add one phony page_counter after the union and re-test, the regression
reduced to -1.2%. It looks like the regression caused by the data
structure layout change.
=========================================================================================
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/nr_task/mode/test/cpufreq_governor/ucode/debug-setup:
lkp-hsw-4ex1/will-it-scale/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/x86_64-rhel-8.3/gcc-9/50%/process/page_fault2/performance/0x16/test1
commit:
8d387a5f172f26ff8c76096d5876b881dec6b7ce
bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e19038716f96f5a41
b3233916ab0a883e1117397e28b723bd0e4ac1eb (debug patch add one phony
page_counter after the union)
8d387a5f172f26ff bd0b230fe14554bfffbae54e190 b3233916ab0a883e1117397e28b
---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
\ | \ | \
187632 -22.8% 144931 -1.2% 185391
will-it-scale.per_process_ops
13509525 -22.8% 10435073 -1.2% 13348181
will-it-scale.workload
--
Zhengjun Xing
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-04 1:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-02 9:15 [mm/memcg] bd0b230fe1: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -22.7% regression kernel test robot
2020-11-02 9:27 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-02 9:53 ` [LKP] " Rong Chen
2020-11-02 10:02 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-04 1:20 ` Xing Zhengjun [this message]
2020-11-04 2:46 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-04 8:15 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-12 12:28 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-12 14:16 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-12 16:43 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-13 7:39 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-13 7:34 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-20 11:44 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-20 13:19 ` Michal Hocko
2020-11-20 14:30 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-25 6:24 ` Feng Tang
2020-11-26 1:34 ` Waiman Long
2020-11-26 17:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-30 8:48 ` Michal Hocko
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=bd87e8bd-c918-3f41-0cc5-e2927d91625f@linux.intel.com \
--to=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris@chrisdown.name \
--cc=guro@fb.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=laoar.shao@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vdavydov.dev@gmail.com \
--cc=zhengjun.xing@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).