From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0936C433B4 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C24461360 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:55:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235491AbhDVJzz (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:55:55 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:49222 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230270AbhDVJzx (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 05:55:53 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C9B211D4; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 02:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e113632-lin (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CDC8C3F774; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 02:55:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Valentin Schneider To: Oliver Sang Cc: 0day robot , Vincent Guittot , Dietmar Eggemann , LKML , lkp@lists.01.org, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com, Lingutla Chandrasekhar , Peter Zijlstra , Ingo Molnar , Morten Rasmussen , Qais Yousef , Quentin Perret , Pavan Kondeti , Rik van Riel , aubrey.li@linux.intel.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com Subject: Re: [sched/fair] 38ac256d1c: stress-ng.vm-segv.ops_per_sec -13.8% regression In-Reply-To: <20210422074742.GE31382@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> References: <20210414052151.GB21236@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <87im4on5u5.mognet@arm.com> <20210421032022.GA13430@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <87bla8ue3e.mognet@arm.com> <20210422074742.GE31382@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 10:55:10 +0100 Message-ID: <87wnsutzi9.mognet@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/04/21 15:47, Oliver Sang wrote: > hi, Valentin Schneider, > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:27:49AM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: >> On 21/04/21 11:20, Oliver Sang wrote: >> > what's the machine model you used upon which the regression cannot be reproduced? >> > we could check if we have similar model then re-check on the our machine. >> > >> >> I tested this on: >> o Ampere eMAG (arm64, 32 cores) >> o 2-socket Xeon E5-2690 (x86, 40 cores) >> >> and found at worse a -0.3% regression and at best a 2% improvement. I know >> that x86 box is somewhat ancient, but it's been my go-to "have I broken >> x86?" test victim for a while :-) > > we don't have exactly 2-socket Xeon E5-2690 model, but we have one: > Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz (2-socket, 48 cores with 112G memory) > the test on it shows the regression is existing, too. but smaller (-5.3%) > hope it's helpful > It is, thank you for trying this out on another system and figuring out it's still visible! I'll go find myself some other x86 box and dig into it; I'd rather not leave this hanging for too long.