Messages in this thread | | | From | Saeed Mirzamohammadi <> | Subject | Re: Reporting a performance regression in sched/fair on Unixbench Shell Scripts with commit a53ce18cacb4 | Date | Thu, 29 Jun 2023 22:19:36 +0000 |
| |
> On Jun 21, 2023, at 9:41 AM, Saeed Mirzamohammadi <saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com> wrote: > > 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.
A gentle reminder if there is any recommendation for v5.4.y and v4.14.y regression. Thanks!
> > >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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
| |