On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 9:00 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I was suspecting the following for-loop+atomic-add for the regression.
If I read the kernel test robot reports correctly, Johannes' fix patch
does fix the regression (well - mostly. The original reported
regression was 26%, and with Johannes' fix patch it was 3% - so still
a slight performance regression, but not nearly as bad).
> Why the above atomic-add is the culprit?
I think the problem with that one is that it's cross-cpu statistics,
so you end up with lots of cacheline bounces on the local counts when
you have lots of load.
But yes, the recursive updates still do show a small regression,
probably because there's still some overhead from the looping up in
the hierarchy. You still get *those* cacheline bounces, but now they
are limited to the upper hierarchies that only get updated at batch
time.
Johannes? Am I reading this right?
Linus
