Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 23:02:21 +0800 | From | Aaron Lu <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [mm] e27be240df: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -27.2% regression |
| |
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 10:32:11AM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:26:40PM -0400, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 01:34:51PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > FYI, we noticed a -27.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit: > > > > > > > > > commit: e27be240df53f1a20c659168e722b5d9f16cc7f4 ("mm: memcg: make sure memory.events is uptodate when waking pollers") > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master > > > > > > in testcase: will-it-scale > > > on test machine: 72 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory > > > with following parameters: > > > > > > nr_task: 100% > > > mode: process > > > test: page_fault3 > > > cpufreq_governor: performance > > > > > > 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 > > > > This is surprising. Do you run these tests in a memory cgroup with a > > limit set? Can you dump that cgroup's memory.events after the run? > > There is no cgroup related setup so yes, this is surprising. > But the result is quite stable, I have just confirmed on another > Haswell-EP machine. > > perf shows increased cycles spent for lock_page_memcg and > unlock_page_memcg, maybe this can shed some light. Full profile for this > commit and its parent are attached. > > I have also attached dmesg for both commits in case they are useful, > please feel free to let me know if you need any other information. We > also collected a ton of other information during the run like > /proc/vmstat, /proc/meminfo, /proc/interrupt etc.
Test on Broadwell-EP also showed 35% regression, here are a list of functions that take more CPU cycles with this commit according to perf:
a38c015f3156895b e27be240df53f1a20c659168e7 ---------------- -------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ 58033709 -35.0% 37727244 will-it-scale.workload ... ... 3.82 +6.1 9.97 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.handle_mm_fault 3.19 +6.2 9.37 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.page_remove_rmap 0.25 +6.5 6.71 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__unlock_page_memcg 3.63 +7.5 11.15 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.page_add_file_rmap 0.60 +8.1 8.70 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.lock_page_memcg
| |