Messages in this thread | | | From | Vincent Guittot <> | Date | Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:13:47 +0100 | Subject | Re: [LKP] [PM] 8234f6734c: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -3.6% regression |
| |
Hi Rong,
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019 at 04:24, kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote: > > Greeting, > > FYI, we noticed a -3.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit: > > > commit: 8234f6734c5d74ac794e5517437f51c57d65f865 ("PM-runtime: Switch autosuspend over to using hrtimers") > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master >
Could you rerun with the patch : https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1030857/ ? It optimizes autosuspend by reducing the number of call to ktime_get
Regards, Vincent
> in testcase: will-it-scale > on test machine: 104 threads Skylake with 192G memory > with following parameters: > > nr_task: 100% > mode: process > test: poll2 > 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 > > > > Details are as below: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > To reproduce: > > git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git > cd lkp-tests > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email > bin/lkp run job.yaml > > ========================================================================================= > compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase: > gcc-7/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/process/100%/debian-x86_64-2018-04-03.cgz/lkp-skl-fpga01/poll2/will-it-scale > > commit: > v4.20-rc7 > 8234f6734c ("PM-runtime: Switch autosuspend over to using hrtimers") > > v4.20-rc7 8234f6734c5d74ac794e551743 > ---------------- -------------------------- > fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs > | | | > :2 50% 1:4 dmesg.WARNING:at#for_ip_interrupt_entry/0x > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 240408 -3.6% 231711 will-it-scale.per_process_ops > 25002520 -3.6% 24097991 will-it-scale.workload > 351914 -1.7% 345882 interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts > 1.77 ± 45% -1.1 0.64 mpstat.cpu.idle% > 106164 ± 24% -23.2% 81494 ± 28% numa-meminfo.node0.AnonHugePages > 326430 ± 8% -11.3% 289513 softirqs.SCHED > 1294 -2.0% 1268 vmstat.system.cs > 3178 +48.4% 4716 ± 16% slabinfo.eventpoll_pwq.active_objs > 3178 +48.4% 4716 ± 16% slabinfo.eventpoll_pwq.num_objs > 336.32 -100.0% 0.00 uptime.boot > 3192 -100.0% 0.00 uptime.idle > 3.456e+08 ± 76% -89.9% 34913819 ± 62% cpuidle.C1E.time > 747832 ± 72% -87.5% 93171 ± 45% cpuidle.C1E.usage > 16209 ± 26% -38.2% 10021 ± 44% cpuidle.POLL.time > 6352 ± 32% -39.5% 3843 ± 48% cpuidle.POLL.usage > 885259 ± 2% -13.8% 763434 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit > 865117 ± 2% -13.9% 744992 ± 7% numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local > 405085 ± 7% +38.0% 558905 ± 9% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit > 254056 ± 11% +59.7% 405824 ± 13% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local > 738158 ± 73% -88.5% 85078 ± 47% turbostat.C1E > 1.07 ± 76% -1.0 0.11 ± 62% turbostat.C1E% > 1.58 ± 49% -65.4% 0.55 ± 6% turbostat.CPU%c1 > 0.15 ± 13% -35.0% 0.10 ± 38% turbostat.CPU%c6 > 153.97 ± 16% -54.7 99.31 turbostat.PKG_% > 64141 +1.5% 65072 proc-vmstat.nr_anon_pages > 19541 -7.0% 18178 ± 8% proc-vmstat.nr_shmem > 18296 +1.1% 18506 proc-vmstat.nr_slab_reclaimable > 713938 -2.3% 697489 proc-vmstat.numa_hit > 693688 -2.4% 677228 proc-vmstat.numa_local > 772220 -1.9% 757334 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal > 798565 -1.8% 784042 proc-vmstat.pgfault > 732336 -2.7% 712661 proc-vmstat.pgfree > 20.33 ± 4% -7.0% 18.92 sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_load_avg.max > 160603 -44.5% 89108 ± 38% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.avg > 250694 -29.3% 177358 ± 18% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.max > 1109 ± 4% -7.0% 1031 sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.max > 20.33 ± 4% -7.2% 18.88 sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[0].max > -10.00 +35.0% -13.50 sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.min > 3.56 ± 10% +44.2% 5.14 ± 18% sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev > 87.10 ± 24% -34.0% 57.44 ± 37% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.avg > 239.48 -25.6% 178.07 ± 18% sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.stddev > 332.67 ± 7% -25.5% 247.83 ± 13% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_count.min > 231.67 ± 8% -15.4% 195.96 ± 12% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.min > 95.47 -95.5 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.poll > 90.26 -90.3 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.poll > 90.08 -90.1 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.poll > 89.84 -89.8 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.poll > 88.04 -88.0 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.poll > 2.66 -0.1 2.54 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._copy_from_user.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 1.90 -0.1 1.81 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.copy_user_enhanced_fast_string._copy_from_user.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64 > 2.56 +0.1 2.64 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__fdget.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +2.3 2.29 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_return_via_sysret > 0.00 +2.3 2.34 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64 > 17.45 +3.8 21.24 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__fget_light.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +92.7 92.66 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_sys_poll.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +94.5 94.51 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_poll.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +94.8 94.75 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 0.00 +94.9 94.92 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 96.03 -96.0 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.poll > 90.29 -90.3 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe > 90.11 -90.1 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64 > 89.87 -89.9 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_poll > 89.39 -89.4 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_sys_poll > 16.19 -16.2 0.00 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__fget_light > 68.59 -68.6 0.00 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.do_sys_poll > 14.84 -14.8 0.00 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__fget_light > 1.759e+13 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.branch-instructions > 0.28 -0.3 0.00 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate% > 4.904e+10 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.branch-misses > 6.79 ± 3% -6.8 0.00 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate% > 1.071e+08 ± 4% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.cache-misses > 1.578e+09 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.cache-references > 385311 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.context-switches > 1.04 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.cpi > 8.643e+13 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.cpu-cycles > 13787 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.cpu-migrations > 0.00 ± 4% -0.0 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-load-miss-rate% > 23324811 ± 5% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-load-misses > 1.811e+13 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-loads > 0.00 -0.0 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-store-miss-rate% > 2478029 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-store-misses > 8.775e+12 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.dTLB-stores > 99.66 -99.7 0.00 perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate% > 7.527e+09 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.iTLB-load-misses > 25540468 ± 39% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.iTLB-loads > 8.33e+13 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.instructions > 11066 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.instructions-per-iTLB-miss > 0.96 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.ipc > 777357 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.minor-faults > 81.69 -81.7 0.00 perf-stat.node-load-miss-rate% > 20040093 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.node-load-misses > 4491667 ± 7% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.node-loads > 75.23 ± 10% -75.2 0.00 perf-stat.node-store-miss-rate% > 3418662 ± 30% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.node-store-misses > 1027183 ± 11% -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.node-stores > 777373 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.page-faults > 3331644 -100.0% 0.00 perf-stat.path-length > > > > will-it-scale.per_process_ops > > 242000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > | +.+.. .+..+. .+.+..+.+.+. .+.+.. | > 240000 +-+ + +.+ +.+..+ +..+ +.| > 238000 +-+..+.+. .+. .+..+ | > | +. +.+ | > 236000 +-+ | > | | > 234000 +-+ | > | O O O O | > 232000 +-+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O | > 230000 +-+ O O O O O O | > | O | > 228000 O-+ O O | > | O O | > 226000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ > > > will-it-scale.workload > > 2.52e+07 +-+--------------------------------------------------------------+ > | +..+. .+..+. .+. .+.+..+. .+..+. | > 2.5e+07 +-+ + +.+ +.+.+. + +.+ +.| > 2.48e+07 +-+.+..+. .+. .+.+ | > | + +..+ | > 2.46e+07 +-+ | > 2.44e+07 +-+ | > | | > 2.42e+07 +-+ O O O O O O O O | > 2.4e+07 +-+ O O O O O O O O O O | > | O O O O O O | > 2.38e+07 O-+ O | > 2.36e+07 +-O O O | > | | > 2.34e+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. > > > Thanks, > Rong Chen
| |