Messages in this thread | | | From | Saeed Mirzamohammadi <> | Subject | Re: Reporting a performance regression in sched/fair on Unixbench Shell Scripts with commit a53ce18cacb4 | Date | Wed, 21 Jun 2023 16:41:29 +0000 |
| |
Hi Chen, Vincent,
> On Jun 13, 2023, at 11:37 PM, Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com> wrote: > > On 2023-06-13 at 19:35:55 +0000, Saeed Mirzamohammadi wrote: >> Hi Vincent, >> >>> On Jun 9, 2023, at 9:52 AM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Saeed, >>> >>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:48, Saeed Mirzamohammadi >>> <saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I’m reporting a regression of up to 8% with Unixbench Shell Scripts benchmarks after the following commit: >>>> >>>> Commit Data: >>>> commit-id : a53ce18cacb477dd0513c607f187d16f0fa96f71 >>>> subject : sched/fair: Sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated >>>> author : vincent.guittot@linaro.org >>>> author date : 2023-03-17 16:08:10 >>>> >>>> >>>> We have observed this on our v5.4 and v4.14 kernel and not yet tested 5.15 but I expect the same. >>> >>> It would be good to confirm that the regression is present on v6.3 >>> where the patch has been merged originally. It can be that there is >>> hidden dependency with other patches introduced since v5.4 >> >> Regression is present on v6.3 as well, examples: >> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent: ~6% >> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent: ~8% >> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent: ~2%
Apologize for the confusion, I should correct the v6.3 upstream result above. v6.3 doesn’t have any regression. v6.3.y -> no regression v5.15.y -> no regression v5.4.y -> 5-8% regression.
>>> >>> >>>> >>>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -0.01% >>>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -0.1% >>>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -0.12%% >>>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -2.29%% >>>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -4.22% >>>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -4.23% >>>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -5.54% >>>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8% >>>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.05% >>>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -6.4% >>>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8.35% >>>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.09% >>>> >>>> Link to unixbench: >>>> github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench >>> >>> I tried to reproduce the problem with v6.3 on my system but I don't >>> see any difference with or without the patch >>> >>> Do you have more details on your setup ? number of cpu and topology ? >>> >> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v4 @ 2.60GHz >> >> Topology: >> node 0 1 >> 0: 10 21 >> 1: 21 10 >> >> Architecture: x86_64 >> CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit >> CPU(s): 56 >> On-line CPU(s) list: 0-55 >> Thread(s) per core: 2 >> Core(s) per socket: 14 >> Socket(s): 2 >> NUMA node(s): 2 >> > Tested on a similar platform E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz which has 2 nodes, > 24 cores/48 CPUs in total, however I could not reproduce the issue. > Since the regression was reported mainly against 224 and 448 copies case > on your platform, I tested unixbench shell1 with 4 x 48 = 192 copies. > > > a53ce18cacb477dd 213acadd21a080fc8cda8eebe6d > ---------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 21304 +0.5% 21420 unixbench.score > 632.43 +0.0% 632.44 unixbench.time.elapsed_time > 632.43 +0.0% 632.44 unixbench.time.elapsed_time.max > 11837046 -4.7% 11277727 unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches > 864713 +0.1% 865914 unixbench.time.major_page_faults > 9600 +4.0% 9984 unixbench.time.maximum_resident_set_size > 8.433e+08 +0.6% 8.48e+08 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults > 4096 +0.0% 4096 unixbench.time.page_size > 3741 +1.1% 3783 unixbench.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 18341 +1.3% 18572 unixbench.time.system_time > 5323 +0.6% 5353 unixbench.time.user_time > 78197044 -3.1% 75791701 unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches > 57178573 +0.4% 57399061 unixbench.workload > > There is no much difference with a53ce18cacb477dd applied or not. > > > > > > a2e90611b9f425ad 829c1651e9c4a6f78398d3e6765 > ---------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 19985 +8.6% 21697 unixbench.score > 632.64 -0.0% 632.53 unixbench.time.elapsed_time > 632.64 -0.0% 632.53 unixbench.time.elapsed_time.max > 11453985 +3.7% 11880259 unixbench.time.involuntary_context_switches > 818996 +3.1% 844681 unixbench.time.major_page_faults > 9600 +0.0% 9600 unixbench.time.maximum_resident_set_size > 7.911e+08 +8.4% 8.575e+08 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults > 4096 +0.0% 4096 unixbench.time.page_size > 3767 -0.4% 3752 unixbench.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got > 18873 -2.4% 18423 unixbench.time.system_time > 4960 +7.1% 5313 unixbench.time.user_time > 75436000 +10.8% 83581483 unixbench.time.voluntary_context_switches > 53553404 +8.7% 58235303 unixbench.workload > > Previously with 829c1651e9c4a6f introduced, there is 8.6% improvement. And this improvement > remains with a53ce18cacb477dd applied. > > Can you send the full test script so I can have a try locally?
Thanks for testing this. For v5.4.y kernel (not for v6.3.y or v5.15.y), there is an 8% regression with the following test: ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent And that’s ’shell8’ with ‘-c 448’ copies passed as argument.
Thanks, Saeed
> > thanks, > Chenyu
| |