All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Sandeep Patil <sspatil@android.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
	Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
	Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [pipe] 3b844826b6: stress-ng.sigio.ops_per_sec -99.3% regression
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:22:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjEdeNW8bPNhwRCkMu6zLKjE2vQ=WL_6bQtc9YnaKt0bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210824151337.GC27667@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -99.3% regression of stress-ng.sigio.ops_per_sec due to commit:

Well, that's bad.

> commit: 3b844826b6c6 ("pipe: avoid unnecessary EPOLLET wakeups under normal loads")

You fix one benchmark, you break another..

What's a bit odd is that this commit basically reverts commit
3a34b13a88ca ("pipe: make pipe writes always wake up readers") which
did *not* result in any kernel test robot report.

It's not a pure revert, because it adds that 'poll_usage' case (for
EPOLLET), but the stress-ng.sigio test doesn't even use select or poll
(ok, there's a select() call with an empty file descriptor set, which
seems to be just an odd way to spell "usleep()").

So it _looks_ to me like it's a 100% revert in practice for that test.
I strace'd the "stress-ng --sigio" case just to make sure I didn't
miss anything.

But I'm clearly missing something. Can anybody see what I'm missing,
and hit me over the head with the clue-bat?

                      Linus

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [pipe] 3b844826b6: stress-ng.sigio.ops_per_sec -99.3% regression
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2021 09:22:25 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjEdeNW8bPNhwRCkMu6zLKjE2vQ=WL_6bQtc9YnaKt0bw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210824151337.GC27667@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]

On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 7:56 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -99.3% regression of stress-ng.sigio.ops_per_sec due to commit:

Well, that's bad.

> commit: 3b844826b6c6 ("pipe: avoid unnecessary EPOLLET wakeups under normal loads")

You fix one benchmark, you break another..

What's a bit odd is that this commit basically reverts commit
3a34b13a88ca ("pipe: make pipe writes always wake up readers") which
did *not* result in any kernel test robot report.

It's not a pure revert, because it adds that 'poll_usage' case (for
EPOLLET), but the stress-ng.sigio test doesn't even use select or poll
(ok, there's a select() call with an empty file descriptor set, which
seems to be just an odd way to spell "usleep()").

So it _looks_ to me like it's a 100% revert in practice for that test.
I strace'd the "stress-ng --sigio" case just to make sure I didn't
miss anything.

But I'm clearly missing something. Can anybody see what I'm missing,
and hit me over the head with the clue-bat?

                      Linus

  reply	other threads:[~2021-08-24 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-08-24 15:13 [pipe] 3b844826b6: stress-ng.sigio.ops_per_sec -99.3% regression kernel test robot
2021-08-24 15:13 ` kernel test robot
2021-08-24 16:22 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2021-08-24 16:22   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-24 17:32   ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-24 17:32     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-24 17:39     ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-24 17:39       ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-25  8:50       ` Oliver Sang
2021-08-25  8:50         ` Oliver Sang
2021-08-25 14:11       ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-08-25 14:11         ` Eric W. Biederman
2021-08-25 17:25         ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-25 17:25           ` Linus Torvalds
2021-08-24 18:42     ` Colin Ian King
2021-08-24 18:42       ` Colin Ian King
2021-08-24 20:57     ` Colin Ian King
2021-08-24 20:57       ` Colin Ian King

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='CAHk-=wjEdeNW8bPNhwRCkMu6zLKjE2vQ=WL_6bQtc9YnaKt0bw@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=sspatil@android.com \
    --cc=ying.huang@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.