From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com [192.55.52.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21F7C1FBA for ; Sun, 3 Jul 2022 10:44:00 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656845040; x=1688381040; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=vTTAw9QKNXkaEQrbW3B9/sW65KKD9yPkaMxgTxRHzfs=; b=FzJ8iZEDbyPYiT85jJrP9yeoMizKhnwBL92H+eg6vPZ3NlKAlslSeKWt i+av3s3Wh6m3eJNyJMIkRiPFefwk+s2inyya7JnixpjlZz0oYRxFh0M5K TeZ6ja4Vu2KfAeChWily/2Hy/Ec9c4P50hJjhRny1/GjyIgFlyvQnf6Zg 0uPAGGHZ/4IW+Yq0C4VlxArsygPcXTRNCKnMXPV/sRSgB7j88G5PTS2T9 keJSz4MmcOGAW/pqnOG5jKnSEls+m4wHIcF0V2Z8rCUxJgpxjRRrBbKye 5QyAmnIf8PAUHjqt38+Fc2rcQsBr7p95KX6jc7EYW9SDvgySyGXtJ20xE g==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10396"; a="308464753" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,241,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="308464753" Received: from orsmga008.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.65]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 03 Jul 2022 03:43:59 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,241,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="618916129" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.138]) by orsmga008.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Jul 2022 03:43:53 -0700 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2022 18:43:53 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Eric Dumazet , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Muchun Song , Jakub Kicinski , Xin Long , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , kernel test robot , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , LKML , network dev , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, MPTCP Upstream , "linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" , lkp@lists.01.org, kbuild test robot , Huang Ying , Xing Zhengjun , Yin Fengwei , Ying Xu Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression Message-ID: <20220703104353.GB62281@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20220624144358.lqt2ffjdry6p5u4d@google.com> <20220625023642.GA40868@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627023812.GA29314@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627123415.GA32052@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627144822.GA20878@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220628034926.GA69004@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Hi Shakeel, On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 08:47:29AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 8:49 PM Feng Tang wrote: > > I just tested it, it does perform better (the 4th is with your patch), > > some perf-profile data is also listed. > > > > 7c80b038d23e1f4c 4890b686f4088c90432149bd6de 332b589c49656a45881bca4ecc0 e719635902654380b23ffce908d > > ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- > > 15722 -69.5% 4792 -40.8% 9300 -27.9% 11341 netperf.Throughput_Mbps > > > > 0.00 +0.3 0.26 ± 5% +0.5 0.51 +1.3 1.27 ± 2%pp.self.__sk_mem_raise_allocated > > 0.00 +0.3 0.32 ± 15% +1.7 1.74 ± 2% +0.4 0.40 ± 2% pp.self.propagate_protected_usage > > 0.00 +0.8 0.82 ± 7% +0.9 0.90 +0.8 0.84 pp.self.__mod_memcg_state > > 0.00 +1.2 1.24 ± 4% +1.0 1.01 +1.4 1.44 pp.self.try_charge_memcg > > 0.00 +2.1 2.06 +2.1 2.13 +2.1 2.11 pp.self.page_counter_uncharge > > 0.00 +2.1 2.14 ± 4% +2.7 2.71 +2.6 2.60 ± 2% pp.self.page_counter_try_charge > > 1.12 ± 4% +3.1 4.24 +1.1 2.22 +1.4 2.51 pp.self.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath > > 0.28 ± 9% +3.8 4.06 ± 4% +0.2 0.48 +0.4 0.68 pp.self.sctp_eat_data > > 0.00 +8.2 8.23 +0.8 0.83 +1.3 1.26 pp.self.__sk_mem_reduce_allocated > > > > And the size of 'mem_cgroup' is increased from 4224 Bytes to 4608. > > Hi Feng, can you please try two more configurations? Take Eric's patch > of adding ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp in page_counter and for first > increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64 and for second increase it to 128. > Basically batch increases combined with Eric's patch. With increasing batch to 128, the regression could be reduced to -12.4%. Some more details with perf-profile data below: 7c80b038d23e1f4c 4890b686f4088c90432149bd6de Eric's patch Eric's patch + batch-64 Eric's patch + batch-128 ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- 15722 -69.5% 4792 -27.9% 11341 -14.0% 13521 -12.4% 13772 netperf.Throughput_Mbps 0.05 +0.2 0.27 ± 18% +0.0 0.08 ± 6% -0.1 0.00 -0.0 0.03 ±100% pp.self.timekeeping_max_deferment 0.00 +0.3 0.26 ± 5% +1.3 1.27 ± 2% +1.8 1.82 ± 10% +2.0 1.96 ± 9% pp.self.__sk_mem_raise_allocated 0.00 +0.3 0.32 ± 15% +0.4 0.40 ± 2% +0.1 0.10 ± 5% +0.0 0.00 pp.self.propagate_protected_usage 0.00 +0.8 0.82 ± 7% +0.8 0.84 +0.5 0.48 +0.4 0.36 ± 2% pp.self.__mod_memcg_state 0.00 +1.2 1.24 ± 4% +1.4 1.44 +0.4 0.40 ± 3% +0.2 0.24 ± 6% pp.self.try_charge_memcg 0.00 +2.1 2.06 +2.1 2.11 +0.5 0.50 +0.2 0.18 ± 8% pp.self.page_counter_uncharge 0.00 +2.1 2.14 ± 4% +2.6 2.60 ± 2% +0.6 0.58 +0.2 0.20 pp.self.page_counter_try_charge 1.12 ± 4% +3.1 4.24 +1.4 2.51 +1.0 2.10 ± 2% +1.0 2.10 ± 9% pp.self.native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath 0.28 ± 9% +3.8 4.06 ± 4% +0.4 0.68 +0.6 0.90 ± 9% +0.7 1.00 ± 11% pp.self.sctp_eat_data 0.00 +8.2 8.23 +1.3 1.26 +1.7 1.72 ± 6% +2.0 1.95 ± 10% pp.self.__sk_mem_reduce_allocated Thanks, Feng