All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@gmail.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Sachin Sant <sachinp@linux.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
	Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com, Aubrey Li <aubrey.li@linux.intel.com>,
	Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [sched/pelt] 2d02fa8cc2: stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec -9.7% regression
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:19:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADjb_WT0fcP2QBjYpsCAJEcVYWKNw1rQ6XZNz33i+KCbD8jB-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220204141941.GE4077@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>

Hi Vincent,

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:17 PM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -9.7% regression of stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of load_sum with load_avg")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: stress-ng
> on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
>         nr_threads: 100%
>         testtime: 60s
>         class: memory
>         test: pipeherd
>         cpufreq_governor: performance
>         ucode: 0xd000280
>
This week we have re-run the test result and it seems that this
regression is still there.
As we are evaluating whether this report is valid or if the
downgrading is expected, appreciated
if you could give suggestion on further steps:

1.  If I understand correctly,
2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync
of load_sum with load_avg")
     fixed the calculating of  load_sum.  Before this patch  the
contribution part would be 'skipped' and caused the load_sum
     to be lower than expected.
2. If above is true, after this patch, the load_sum becomes higher. Is
there a scenario that higher load_sum added to 1 cfs_rq brings
    more imbalance between this group and other sched_group, thus
brings more task migration/wake up? (because in below perf result,
    it seems that, with this patch applied, there are slightly more
take wake up)
3.  Consider the 9.7% downgrading is not that high,  do you think if
lkp team should continue track this issue or just close it
    as documented?

Best,
Yu
>
> commit:
>   95246d1ec8 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of runnable_sum with runnable_avg")
>   2d02fa8cc2 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of load_sum with load_avg")
>
> 95246d1ec80b8d19 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf
> ---------------- ---------------------------
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \
>       0.21           +11.0%       0.24 ą  2%  stress-ng.pipeherd.context_switches_per_bogo_op
>  3.869e+09            -9.7%  3.494e+09        stress-ng.pipeherd.ops
>   64412021            -9.7%   58171101        stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec
>     442.37            -7.2%     410.54        stress-ng.time.user_time
>       5.49 ą  2%      -0.5        4.94 ą  4%  mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
>      80705 ą  7%     +26.7%     102266 ą 17%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active
>      80705 ą  7%     +26.7%     102266 ą 17%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
>      12324 ą  3%     -22.1%       9603 ą 25%  softirqs.CPU106.RCU
>      12703 ą  4%     -23.1%       9769 ą 24%  softirqs.CPU27.RCU
>      15.96            +1.0       16.95        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read.vfs_read.ksys_read
>       6.67            +1.0        7.68 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.enqueue_task_fair.ttwu_do_activate.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common
>       6.77            +1.0        7.79 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ttwu_do_activate.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock
>      14.46            +1.0       15.48 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read.vfs_read
>      13.73            +1.1       14.79 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read
>      26.95            +1.4       28.34        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write.vfs_write.ksys_write
>      25.85            +1.5       27.32        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write.vfs_write
>      25.18            +1.5       26.69        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write
>      24.61            +1.5       26.14        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chen Yu <yu.chen.surf@gmail.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [sched/pelt] 2d02fa8cc2: stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec -9.7% regression
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 22:19:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADjb_WT0fcP2QBjYpsCAJEcVYWKNw1rQ6XZNz33i+KCbD8jB-A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220204141941.GE4077@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4346 bytes --]

Hi Vincent,

On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 1:17 PM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -9.7% regression of stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of load_sum with load_avg")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: stress-ng
> on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
>         nr_threads: 100%
>         testtime: 60s
>         class: memory
>         test: pipeherd
>         cpufreq_governor: performance
>         ucode: 0xd000280
>
This week we have re-run the test result and it seems that this
regression is still there.
As we are evaluating whether this report is valid or if the
downgrading is expected, appreciated
if you could give suggestion on further steps:

1.  If I understand correctly,
2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf8ab87bf2db651 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync
of load_sum with load_avg")
     fixed the calculating of  load_sum.  Before this patch  the
contribution part would be 'skipped' and caused the load_sum
     to be lower than expected.
2. If above is true, after this patch, the load_sum becomes higher. Is
there a scenario that higher load_sum added to 1 cfs_rq brings
    more imbalance between this group and other sched_group, thus
brings more task migration/wake up? (because in below perf result,
    it seems that, with this patch applied, there are slightly more
take wake up)
3.  Consider the 9.7% downgrading is not that high,  do you think if
lkp team should continue track this issue or just close it
    as documented?

Best,
Yu
>
> commit:
>   95246d1ec8 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of runnable_sum with runnable_avg")
>   2d02fa8cc2 ("sched/pelt: Relax the sync of load_sum with load_avg")
>
> 95246d1ec80b8d19 2d02fa8cc21a93da35cfba462bf
> ---------------- ---------------------------
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \
>       0.21           +11.0%       0.24 ą  2%  stress-ng.pipeherd.context_switches_per_bogo_op
>  3.869e+09            -9.7%  3.494e+09        stress-ng.pipeherd.ops
>   64412021            -9.7%   58171101        stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec
>     442.37            -7.2%     410.54        stress-ng.time.user_time
>       5.49 ą  2%      -0.5        4.94 ą  4%  mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
>      80705 ą  7%     +26.7%     102266 ą 17%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active
>      80705 ą  7%     +26.7%     102266 ą 17%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
>      12324 ą  3%     -22.1%       9603 ą 25%  softirqs.CPU106.RCU
>      12703 ą  4%     -23.1%       9769 ą 24%  softirqs.CPU27.RCU
>      15.96            +1.0       16.95        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read.vfs_read.ksys_read
>       6.67            +1.0        7.68 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.enqueue_task_fair.ttwu_do_activate.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common
>       6.77            +1.0        7.79 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ttwu_do_activate.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock
>      14.46            +1.0       15.48 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read.vfs_read
>      13.73            +1.1       14.79 ą  2%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath._raw_spin_lock_irqsave.prepare_to_wait_event.pipe_read.new_sync_read
>      26.95            +1.4       28.34        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write.vfs_write.ksys_write
>      25.85            +1.5       27.32        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write.vfs_write
>      25.18            +1.5       26.69        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write.new_sync_write
>      24.61            +1.5       26.14        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.try_to_wake_up.autoremove_wake_function.__wake_up_common.__wake_up_common_lock.pipe_write

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-31 14:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-04 14:19 [sched/pelt] 2d02fa8cc2: stress-ng.pipeherd.ops_per_sec -9.7% regression kernel test robot
2022-02-04 14:19 ` kernel test robot
2022-03-31 14:19 ` Chen Yu [this message]
2022-03-31 14:19   ` Chen Yu
2022-03-31 16:17   ` Vincent Guittot
2022-03-31 16:17     ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-01 18:32     ` Chen Yu
2022-04-01 18:32       ` Chen Yu
2022-04-04  9:52       ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-04  9:52         ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-05 14:22         ` Chen Yu
2022-04-05 14:22           ` Chen Yu
2022-04-08  8:57           ` Vincent Guittot
2022-04-08  8:57             ` Vincent Guittot

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=CADjb_WT0fcP2QBjYpsCAJEcVYWKNw1rQ6XZNz33i+KCbD8jB-A@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=yu.chen.surf@gmail.com \
    --cc=aubrey.li@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=dietmar.eggemann@arm.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=sachinp@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.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.