Greeting, FYI, we noticed a 2.5% improvement of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit: commit: 925da92ba5cb0c82d07cdd5049a07e40f54e9c44 ("rcu: Avoid unneeded function call in rcu_read_unlock()") https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/paulmck/linux-rcu.git rcu/next in testcase: will-it-scale on test machine: 88 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6238M CPU @ 2.10GHz with 128G memory with following parameters: nr_task: 16 mode: process test: getppid1 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 Details are as below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> To reproduce: git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git cd lkp-tests sudo bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml file for lkp run sudo bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file # if come across any failure that blocks the test, # please remove ~/.lkp and /lkp dir to run from a clean state. ========================================================================================= compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode: gcc-9/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/process/16/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/lkp-csl-2sp9/getppid1/will-it-scale/0x5003006 commit: f0b2b2df54 ("rcu: Fix existing exp request check in sync_sched_exp_online_cleanup()") 925da92ba5 ("rcu: Avoid unneeded function call in rcu_read_unlock()") f0b2b2df5423fb36 925da92ba5cb0c82d07cdd5049a ---------------- --------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ 2.029e+08 +2.5% 2.08e+08 will-it-scale.16.processes 12684091 +2.5% 12998034 will-it-scale.per_process_ops 2.029e+08 +2.5% 2.08e+08 will-it-scale.workload 746.67 ± 6% -30.7% 517.33 ± 27% slabinfo.kmalloc-rcl-128.active_objs 746.67 ± 6% -30.7% 517.33 ± 27% slabinfo.kmalloc-rcl-128.num_objs 2816 ±113% -65.6% 968.17 ± 20% interrupts.CPU21.CAL:Function_call_interrupts 2150 ± 33% +155.5% 5494 ± 37% interrupts.CPU52.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts 2150 ± 33% +155.5% 5494 ± 37% interrupts.CPU52.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts 15629 ± 22% +31.1% 20491 ± 16% softirqs.CPU3.RCU 14781 ± 15% +32.2% 19544 ± 19% softirqs.CPU46.RCU 32737 ± 21% -44.7% 18119 ± 58% softirqs.CPU51.SCHED 4.07 ± 7% -0.9 3.15 ± 12% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_return_via_sysret.getppid 6.74 ± 5% -1.4 5.34 ± 16% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_getppid 1.05 ± 10% -0.2 0.89 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt 0.96 ± 11% -0.1 0.81 ± 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt 0.23 ± 12% -0.1 0.17 ± 13% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.clockevents_program_event 1.36 ± 6% -0.7 0.65 ± 12% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_getppid 0.08 ± 8% -0.0 0.06 ± 13% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.cpuidle_enter_state 9.855e+09 -6.1% 9.255e+09 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions 3709820 ± 2% -13.3% 3215247 ± 11% perf-stat.i.branch-misses 0.97 +2.5% 0.99 perf-stat.i.cpi 1.559e+10 -3.0% 1.512e+10 perf-stat.i.dTLB-loads 0.00 +0.0 0.00 perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-miss-rate% 1.081e+10 -5.3% 1.024e+10 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores 71.57 ± 9% -13.1 58.45 ± 5% perf-stat.i.iTLB-load-miss-rate% 4.723e+10 -2.5% 4.605e+10 perf-stat.i.instructions 21047 ± 26% +63.2% 34353 ± 9% perf-stat.i.instructions-per-iTLB-miss 1.03 -2.4% 1.01 perf-stat.i.ipc 566.45 -4.5% 540.90 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec 0.97 +2.5% 0.99 perf-stat.overall.cpi 0.00 +0.0 0.00 perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate% 1.03 -2.4% 1.01 perf-stat.overall.ipc 70024 -4.7% 66743 perf-stat.overall.path-length 9.822e+09 -6.1% 9.224e+09 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions 3698900 ± 2% -13.2% 3212114 ± 11% perf-stat.ps.branch-misses 1.554e+10 -3.0% 1.507e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads 1.077e+10 -5.3% 1.021e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores 4.708e+10 -2.5% 4.59e+10 perf-stat.ps.instructions 1.421e+13 -2.3% 1.388e+13 perf-stat.total.instructions will-it-scale.per_process_ops 1.31e+07 +----------------------------------------------------------------+ 1.3e+07 |-+ O O O O O O O O O O | | O O OO O O O O O O O O O | 1.29e+07 |-+ | 1.28e+07 |-+ | |. +. .+. .+ | 1.27e+07 |-+.+.+.+.+ + +.+.+.+. .+. .+.+.+.+.+ +.+.+.++ + .+.+.| 1.26e+07 |-+ +.+ +.+.+ ++ + | 1.25e+07 |-+ | | | 1.24e+07 |-+ | 1.23e+07 |-+ | | | 1.22e+07 |-+ O O | 1.21e+07 +----------------------------------------------------------------+ [*] 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. --- 0DAY/LKP+ Test Infrastructure Open Source Technology Center https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/lkp@lists.01.org Intel Corporation Thanks, Oliver Sang