From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de> Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@01.org Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [mm, vmscan] 5e56dfbd83: fsmark.files_per_sec -11.1% regression Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:35:45 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170223073544.uiy6rvw3d44irixf@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170223012734.GB31776@yexl-desktop> On Thu 23-02-17 09:27:34, Ye Xiaolong wrote: > Hi, Michal > > On 02/07, Michal Hocko wrote: > [snip] > >Could you retest with a single NUMA node? I am not familiar with the > >benchmark enough to judge it was set up properly for a NUMA machine. > > I've retested the commit with a single NUMA node via "numactl -m 0 fs_mark xxx", > and it did help recover the performance back. Thanks for restesting! get_scan_count which was > > Here is the comparison: > > commit/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs/iterations/kconfig/md/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase: > 5e56dfbd837421b7fa3c6c06018c6701e2704917/gcc-6/performance/3HDD/4M/btrfs/1/x86_64-rhel-7.2/RAID5/64/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/NoSync/ivb44/130G/fsmark > > (with a single NUMA node) (2 NUMA nodes) > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs > | | | > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 57.60 ± 0% -11.1% 51.20 ± 0% fsmark.files_per_sec > 607.84 ± 0% +9.0% 662.24 ± 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time > 607.84 ± 0% +9.0% 662.24 ± 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max > 14317 ± 6% -12.2% 12568 ± 7% fsmark.time.involuntary_context_switches > 1864 ± 0% +0.5% 1873 ± 0% fsmark.time.maximum_resident_set_size > 12425 ± 0% +23.3% 15320 ± 3% fsmark.time.minor_page_faults > 33.00 ± 3% -33.9% 21.80 ± 1% fsmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 203.49 ± 3% -28.1% 146.31 ± 1% fsmark.time.system_time > 605701 ± 0% +3.6% 627486 ± 0% fsmark.time.voluntary_context_switches > 307106 ± 2% +20.2% 368992 ± 9% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts > 183040 ± 0% +23.2% 225559 ± 3% softirqs.BLOCK > 12203 ± 57% +236.4% 41056 ±103% softirqs.NET_RX > 186118 ± 0% +21.9% 226922 ± 2% softirqs.TASKLET > 14317 ± 6% -12.2% 12568 ± 7% time.involuntary_context_switches > 12425 ± 0% +23.3% 15320 ± 3% time.minor_page_faults > 33.00 ± 3% -33.9% 21.80 ± 1% time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 203.49 ± 3% -28.1% 146.31 ± 1% time.system_time > 3.47 ± 3% -13.0% 3.02 ± 1% turbostat.%Busy > 99.60 ± 1% -9.6% 90.00 ± 1% turbostat.Avg_MHz > 78.69 ± 1% +1.7% 80.01 ± 0% turbostat.CorWatt > 3.56 ± 61% -91.7% 0.30 ± 76% turbostat.Pkg%pc2 > 207790 ± 0% -8.2% 190654 ± 1% vmstat.io.bo > 30667691 ± 0% +65.9% 50890669 ± 1% vmstat.memory.cache > 34549892 ± 0% -58.4% 14378939 ± 4% vmstat.memory.free > 6768 ± 0% -1.3% 6681 ± 1% vmstat.system.cs > 1.089e+10 ± 2% +13.4% 1.236e+10 ± 3% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time > 11475304 ± 2% +13.4% 13007849 ± 3% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.usage > 2.7e+09 ± 6% +13.2% 3.057e+09 ± 3% cpuidle.C3-IVT.time > 2954294 ± 6% +14.3% 3375966 ± 3% cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage > 96963295 ± 14% +17.5% 1.139e+08 ± 12% cpuidle.POLL.time > 8761 ± 7% +17.6% 10299 ± 9% cpuidle.POLL.usage > 30454483 ± 0% +66.4% 50666102 ± 1% meminfo.Cached > > Do you see what's happening? not really. All I could see in the previous data was that the memory locality was different (and better) with my patch, which I cannot explain either because get_scan_count is always per-node thing. Moreover the change shouldn't make any difference for normal GFP_KERNEL requests on 64b systems because the reclaim index covers all zones so there is nothing to skip over. > Or is there anything we can do to improve fsmark benchmark setup to > make it more reasonable? Unfortunatelly I am not an expert on this benchmark. Maybe Mel knows better. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [mm, vmscan] 5e56dfbd83: fsmark.files_per_sec -11.1% regression Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:35:45 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170223073544.uiy6rvw3d44irixf@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20170223012734.GB31776@yexl-desktop> [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4145 bytes --] On Thu 23-02-17 09:27:34, Ye Xiaolong wrote: > Hi, Michal > > On 02/07, Michal Hocko wrote: > [snip] > >Could you retest with a single NUMA node? I am not familiar with the > >benchmark enough to judge it was set up properly for a NUMA machine. > > I've retested the commit with a single NUMA node via "numactl -m 0 fs_mark xxx", > and it did help recover the performance back. Thanks for restesting! get_scan_count which was > > Here is the comparison: > > commit/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs/iterations/kconfig/md/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase: > 5e56dfbd837421b7fa3c6c06018c6701e2704917/gcc-6/performance/3HDD/4M/btrfs/1/x86_64-rhel-7.2/RAID5/64/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/NoSync/ivb44/130G/fsmark > > (with a single NUMA node) (2 NUMA nodes) > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs > | | | > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 57.60 ± 0% -11.1% 51.20 ± 0% fsmark.files_per_sec > 607.84 ± 0% +9.0% 662.24 ± 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time > 607.84 ± 0% +9.0% 662.24 ± 1% fsmark.time.elapsed_time.max > 14317 ± 6% -12.2% 12568 ± 7% fsmark.time.involuntary_context_switches > 1864 ± 0% +0.5% 1873 ± 0% fsmark.time.maximum_resident_set_size > 12425 ± 0% +23.3% 15320 ± 3% fsmark.time.minor_page_faults > 33.00 ± 3% -33.9% 21.80 ± 1% fsmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 203.49 ± 3% -28.1% 146.31 ± 1% fsmark.time.system_time > 605701 ± 0% +3.6% 627486 ± 0% fsmark.time.voluntary_context_switches > 307106 ± 2% +20.2% 368992 ± 9% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts > 183040 ± 0% +23.2% 225559 ± 3% softirqs.BLOCK > 12203 ± 57% +236.4% 41056 ±103% softirqs.NET_RX > 186118 ± 0% +21.9% 226922 ± 2% softirqs.TASKLET > 14317 ± 6% -12.2% 12568 ± 7% time.involuntary_context_switches > 12425 ± 0% +23.3% 15320 ± 3% time.minor_page_faults > 33.00 ± 3% -33.9% 21.80 ± 1% time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 203.49 ± 3% -28.1% 146.31 ± 1% time.system_time > 3.47 ± 3% -13.0% 3.02 ± 1% turbostat.%Busy > 99.60 ± 1% -9.6% 90.00 ± 1% turbostat.Avg_MHz > 78.69 ± 1% +1.7% 80.01 ± 0% turbostat.CorWatt > 3.56 ± 61% -91.7% 0.30 ± 76% turbostat.Pkg%pc2 > 207790 ± 0% -8.2% 190654 ± 1% vmstat.io.bo > 30667691 ± 0% +65.9% 50890669 ± 1% vmstat.memory.cache > 34549892 ± 0% -58.4% 14378939 ± 4% vmstat.memory.free > 6768 ± 0% -1.3% 6681 ± 1% vmstat.system.cs > 1.089e+10 ± 2% +13.4% 1.236e+10 ± 3% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.time > 11475304 ± 2% +13.4% 13007849 ± 3% cpuidle.C1E-IVT.usage > 2.7e+09 ± 6% +13.2% 3.057e+09 ± 3% cpuidle.C3-IVT.time > 2954294 ± 6% +14.3% 3375966 ± 3% cpuidle.C3-IVT.usage > 96963295 ± 14% +17.5% 1.139e+08 ± 12% cpuidle.POLL.time > 8761 ± 7% +17.6% 10299 ± 9% cpuidle.POLL.usage > 30454483 ± 0% +66.4% 50666102 ± 1% meminfo.Cached > > Do you see what's happening? not really. All I could see in the previous data was that the memory locality was different (and better) with my patch, which I cannot explain either because get_scan_count is always per-node thing. Moreover the change shouldn't make any difference for normal GFP_KERNEL requests on 64b systems because the reclaim index covers all zones so there is nothing to skip over. > Or is there anything we can do to improve fsmark benchmark setup to > make it more reasonable? Unfortunatelly I am not an expert on this benchmark. Maybe Mel knows better. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-23 7:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-01-23 1:26 [lkp-robot] [mm, vmscan] 5e56dfbd83: fsmark.files_per_sec -11.1% regression kernel test robot 2017-01-23 1:26 ` kernel test robot 2017-01-24 13:44 ` Michal Hocko 2017-01-24 13:44 ` Michal Hocko 2017-01-25 4:27 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-01-25 4:27 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-01-26 9:13 ` Michal Hocko 2017-01-26 9:13 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-04 8:16 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-04 8:16 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-06 8:12 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-06 8:12 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-07 2:22 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-07 2:22 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-07 14:43 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-07 14:43 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-23 1:27 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-23 1:27 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-23 7:35 ` Michal Hocko [this message] 2017-02-23 7:35 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-23 15:19 ` Mel Gorman 2017-02-23 15:19 ` Mel Gorman [not found] <20170219150431.GC24890@dhcp22.suse.cz> 2017-02-20 1:43 ` Ye Xiaolong 2017-02-20 10:19 ` Michal Hocko 2017-02-21 1:10 ` Ye Xiaolong
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=20170223073544.uiy6rvw3d44irixf@dhcp22.suse.cz \ --to=mhocko@kernel.org \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \ --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=lkp@01.org \ --cc=mgorman@suse.de \ --cc=minchan@kernel.org \ --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \ --cc=xiaolong.ye@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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.