Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 May 2021 02:52:39 +0000 | From | Dennis Zhou <> | Subject | Re: [percpu] ace7e70901: aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec -2.3% regression |
| |
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 10:26:14AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > Hi Dennis, > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:08:03PM +0000, Dennis Zhou wrote: > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:22AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:06:06AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > > > hi Roman, > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:54:59AM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > Ping > > > > > > > > sorry for late. > > > > > > > > the new patch makes the performance a little better but still has > > > > 1.9% regression comparing to > > > > f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation") > > > > > > Hi Oliver! > > > > > > Thank you for testing it! > > > > > > Btw, can you, please, confirm that the regression is coming specifically > > > from ace7e70901 ("percpu: use reclaim threshold instead of running for every page")? > > > I do see *some* regression in my setup, but the data is very noisy, so I'm not sure > > > I can confirm it. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Thanks Oliver and Roman. If this is the case, I'll drop the final patch > > and just merge up to f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk > > depopulation") into for-next as this is v5.14 anyway. > > > > Oliver, is there a way to trigger the kernel test robot for a specific > > test? > > sorry for late.
No worries. Thanks for all you work!
> not sure what kind of specific test you want robot to do? > if you mean for-next branch, if the branch is monitored by kernel test robot, > after merge, it will be tested by robot automatically and the bisect will be > triggered if there is still regression.
In this case, we believe there is a regression in "aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec". I know my branches are monitored (hence we suspect this regression), but it would be nice to be able to kick off a test with a patch or set of patches on top to validate that the regression is fixed on your hardware configuration. Unfortunately I don't have a 100+ core machine lying around :P.
Sorry for the additional questions, but is there a time frame that the kernel robot is expected scrape over my tree / what test suites get run against any particular branch?
> I found the ace7e70901 has already been dropped from original branch (dennis-percpu/for-5.14),
Yeah I have temporarily dropped it to get the others into for-next for now. I'll spend some time later this week digging deeper into this.
> and we have data for this branch as below. from data, the f183324133 (current > branch tip) doesn't introduce regression comparing 5.12-rc7 in our tests. > > f183324133ea5 percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation 103673.09 102188.39 104325.06 104038.4 102908.57 104057.06 > 1c29a3ceaf5f0 percpu: use pcpu_free_slot instead of pcpu_nr_slots - 1 104777.31 102225.93 101657.6 > 8ea2e1e35d1eb percpu: factor out pcpu_check_block_hint() 102290.78 101853.87 102541.65 > d434405aaab7d Linux 5.12-rc7 102103.06 102248.12 101906.81 103033.13 102043.33 >
Thanks, Dennis
| |