Greeting, FYI, we noticed a -19.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit: commit: 76742700225cad9df49f05399381ac3f1ec3dc60 ("mm: fix MADV_[FREE|DONTNEED] TLB flush miss problem") url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Nadav-Amit/mm-migrate-prevent-racy-access-to-tlb_flush_pending/20170802-205715 in testcase: will-it-scale on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 64G memory with following parameters: nr_task: 16 mode: process test: brk1 cpufreq_governor: performance test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two. test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale Details are as below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> To reproduce: git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git cd lkp-tests bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email bin/lkp run job.yaml testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/16-process-brk1-performance/lkp-bdw-ep3d 378005bdbac0a2ec 76742700225cad9df49f053993 ---------------- -------------------------- %stddev change %stddev \ | \ 3405093 -19% 2747088 will-it-scale.per_process_ops 2.396e+08 8283% 2.008e+10 perf-stat.iTLB-loads 0.03 26% 0.04 ± 10% perf-stat.branch-miss-rate% 0.00 25% 0.00 ± 11% perf-stat.dTLB-store-miss-rate% 0.56 18% 0.66 perf-stat.cpi 2.859e+13 -13% 2.479e+13 perf-stat.instructions 5.906e+12 -14% 5.087e+12 perf-stat.branch-instructions 4.831e+12 -14% 4.154e+12 perf-stat.dTLB-stores 1.575e+10 ± 6% -15% 1.345e+10 perf-stat.iTLB-load-misses 1.77 -15% 1.51 perf-stat.ipc 8.476e+12 ± 5% -16% 7.079e+12 perf-stat.dTLB-loads 98.49 -59% 40.10 perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate% will-it-scale.per_process_ops 3.5e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ *..*.*..*.*.. .*.*..*.*..*. .* *..*.*..*.*..*.*..*. .*. .* 3.4e+06 ++ *.*. *. : : *. *. | 3.3e+06 ++ : : | | : : | 3.2e+06 ++ :: | 3.1e+06 ++ * | | | 3e+06 ++ | 2.9e+06 ++ | | | 2.8e+06 ++ | 2.7e+06 O+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | O | 2.6e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ perf-stat.branch-instructions 6.8e+12 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ 6.6e+12 ++ * | | :: | 6.4e+12 ++ : : | 6.2e+12 ++ : : | | .*.*..*.*..* * | 6e+12 *+.*.*..*.*..*.*. + *..*.*..*.*..*.*..*.*..*.*..* 5.8e+12 ++ + + | 5.6e+12 ++ * | | | 5.4e+12 ++ | 5.2e+12 O+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O | | O O O O O O O O O O O 5e+12 ++ O O | 4.8e+12 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ perf-stat.iTLB-loads 3.5e+10 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+ O O O O O | 3e+10 ++ | | O O | 2.5e+10 ++ O | | | 2e+10 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | | 1.5e+10 ++ | | | 1e+10 ++ | | | 5e+09 ++ | | | 0 *+-*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--*-*--* perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate_ 100 *+-*-*--*--*-*-----*--*-*--*--*-*--*--*-*--*--*-*--*--*--*-*--*--*-*--* | *. | 90 ++ | 80 ++ | | | 70 ++ | | | 60 ++ | | | 50 ++ | 40 ++ O O O O O O | O O O O O O O O O O O O O | 30 ++ O O O | O O O O O | 20 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+ [*] bisect-good sample [O] bisect-bad sample Disclaimer: Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Thanks, Xiaolong