From: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <yujie.liu@intel.com>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, feng.tang@intel.com,
zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] f1a7941243: unixbench.score -5.1% regression
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2022 10:41:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <875yepfe4j.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod4CD+O7-ynGAHU-6vxE6CbSmuQei1=SVJsx0zFfQdmV2g@mail.gmail.com> (Shakeel Butt's message of "Mon, 5 Dec 2022 09:18:28 -0800")
Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com> writes:
> On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 9:56 PM kernel test robot <yujie.liu@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -5.1% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
>>
> [...]
>> 9cd6ffa60256e931 f1a7941243c102a44e8847e3b94
>> ---------------- ---------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 7917 -5.1% 7509 unixbench.score
>
> What is unixbench.score?
Should be benchmark throughput.
>> 10485 -12.1% 9216 unixbench.time.maximum_resident_set_size
This should reflect accuracy change of per_cpu_counter.
>> 37236706 -5.1% 35324104 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults
The reduction is same as benchmark score. So I think this reflect the
nature of time-bound testing (instead of workload-bound).
> For above two, is negative change good or bad?
>
>> 0.98 ą 20% +0.7 1.64 ą 38% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.link_path_walk.path_openat.do_filp_open.do_sys_openat2.__x64_sys_openat
>> 2.12 ą 19% +0.8 2.96 ą 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
>> 2.35 ą 13% +0.9 3.28 ą 13% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__handle_mm_fault.handle_mm_fault.do_user_addr_fault.exc_page_fault.asm_exc_page_fault
>> 0.14 ą 74% +0.4 0.55 ą 32% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_task_dead
>> 0.04 ą223% +0.4 0.47 ą 49% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__mmdrop
>
> Also how should I interpret the above perf-profiles?
It appears that the changes of handle_mm_fault() and __mmdrop() are
related to the code of the commit? That is, for this specific workloads
(not so unpractical), the operations become slower?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-06 2:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-05 5:54 [linux-next:master] [mm] f1a7941243: unixbench.score -5.1% regression kernel test robot
2022-12-05 17:18 ` Shakeel Butt
2022-12-06 2:41 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2023-01-30 2:37 ` Oliver Sang
2023-01-30 16:29 ` Shakeel Butt
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=875yepfe4j.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=m.szyprowski@samsung.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=shakeelb@google.com \
--cc=yujie.liu@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).