From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
zhengjun.xing@intel.com
Subject: Re: [signal] 4bad58ebc8: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -3.3% regression
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:35:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bla8rehx.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420030837.GB31773@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
On Tue, Apr 20 2021 at 11:08, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed a -3.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
>
> commit: 4bad58ebc8bc4f20d89cff95417c9b4674769709 ("signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core
>
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 192 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9242 CPU @ 2.30GHz with 192G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_task: 100%
> mode: thread
> test: futex3
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0x5003006
>
> 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
> commit:
> 69995ebbb9 ("signal: Hand SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC flag to __sigqueue_alloc()")
> 4bad58ebc8 ("signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct")
>
> 69995ebbb9d37173 4bad58ebc8bc4f20d89cff95417
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 1.273e+09 -3.3% 1.231e+09 will-it-scale.192.threads
> 6630224 -3.3% 6409738 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 1.273e+09 -3.3% 1.231e+09 will-it-scale.workload
> 1638 ± 3% -7.8% 1510 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.max
> 297.83 ± 68% +1747.6% 5502 ±152% interrupts.33:PCI-MSI.524291-edge.eth0-TxRx-2
> 297.83 ± 68% +1747.6% 5502 ±152% interrupts.CPU12.33:PCI-MSI.524291-edge.eth0-TxRx-2
This change is definitely not causing more network traffic
> 8200 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU27.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 8200 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU27.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 8199 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU28.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 8199 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU28.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 6148 ± 33% -11.2% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU29.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 6148 ± 33% -11.2% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU29.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 4287 ± 8% +33.6% 5730 ± 15% interrupts.CPU49.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> 6356 ± 19% +49.6% 9509 ± 19% interrupts.CPU97.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
Neither does it increase the number of function calls
> 407730 ± 8% +37.5% 560565 ± 7% perf-stat.i.dTLB-load-misses
> 415959 ± 8% +40.4% 583928 ± 7% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-load-misses
And this massive increase does not make sense either.
Confused.
Thanks,
tglx
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [signal] 4bad58ebc8: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -3.3% regression
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 20:35:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87bla8rehx.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210420030837.GB31773@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2928 bytes --]
On Tue, Apr 20 2021 at 11:08, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed a -3.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
>
> commit: 4bad58ebc8bc4f20d89cff95417c9b4674769709 ("signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core
>
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 192 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9242 CPU @ 2.30GHz with 192G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_task: 100%
> mode: thread
> test: futex3
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0x5003006
>
> 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
> commit:
> 69995ebbb9 ("signal: Hand SIGQUEUE_PREALLOC flag to __sigqueue_alloc()")
> 4bad58ebc8 ("signal: Allow tasks to cache one sigqueue struct")
>
> 69995ebbb9d37173 4bad58ebc8bc4f20d89cff95417
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 1.273e+09 -3.3% 1.231e+09 will-it-scale.192.threads
> 6630224 -3.3% 6409738 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 1.273e+09 -3.3% 1.231e+09 will-it-scale.workload
> 1638 ± 3% -7.8% 1510 ± 5% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.max
> 297.83 ± 68% +1747.6% 5502 ±152% interrupts.33:PCI-MSI.524291-edge.eth0-TxRx-2
> 297.83 ± 68% +1747.6% 5502 ±152% interrupts.CPU12.33:PCI-MSI.524291-edge.eth0-TxRx-2
This change is definitely not causing more network traffic
> 8200 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU27.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 8200 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU27.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 8199 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU28.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 8199 -33.4% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU28.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 6148 ± 33% -11.2% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU29.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 6148 ± 33% -11.2% 5459 ± 35% interrupts.CPU29.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 4287 ± 8% +33.6% 5730 ± 15% interrupts.CPU49.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> 6356 ± 19% +49.6% 9509 ± 19% interrupts.CPU97.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
Neither does it increase the number of function calls
> 407730 ± 8% +37.5% 560565 ± 7% perf-stat.i.dTLB-load-misses
> 415959 ± 8% +40.4% 583928 ± 7% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-load-misses
And this massive increase does not make sense either.
Confused.
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-20 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-20 3:08 [signal] 4bad58ebc8: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -3.3% regression kernel test robot
2021-04-20 3:08 ` kernel test robot
2021-04-20 18:35 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-04-20 18:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 6:02 ` Oliver Sang
2021-04-22 6:02 ` Oliver Sang
2021-04-22 15:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-22 15:37 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-30 8:13 ` Feng Tang
2021-04-30 8:13 ` Feng Tang
2021-04-30 8:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-04-30 8:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2021-05-01 9:46 ` Feng Tang
2021-05-01 9:46 ` Feng Tang
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=87bla8rehx.ffs@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@intel.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 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.