On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 10:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -14.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2ec4eed77b656793 ("fs/locks: Set fl_nspid at file_lock allocation")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Benjamin-Coddington/fs-locks-Alloc-file_lock-where-practical/20170527-050700
>
>
Ouch, that's a rather nasty performance hit. In hindsight, maybe we
shouldn't move those off the stack after all? Heck, if it's that
significant, maybe we should move the F_SETLK callers to allocate these
on the stack as well?
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 4 threads Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz with 4G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> test: lock1
> 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
>
> In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.9% regression |
> > test machine | 16 threads Intel(R) Atom(R) CPU 3958 @ 2.00GHz with 64G memory |
> > test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
> > | mode=process |
> > | nr_task=100% |
> > | test=lock1 |
>
> +------------------+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> To reproduce:
>
> git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git
> cd lkp-tests
> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>
> testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: will-it-scale/lock1-performance/lkp-ivb-d04
>
> 09790e423b32fba4 9d21d181d06acab9a8e80eac2e
> ---------------- --------------------------
> 0.51 19% 0.60 ± 7% will-it-scale.scalability
> 2462089 -14% 2114597 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
> 2195246 -26% 1631578 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> 350 356 will-it-scale.time.system_time
> 28.89 -24% 22.06 will-it-scale.time.user_time
> 32.78 31.97 turbostat.PkgWatt
> 15.58 -5% 14.80 turbostat.CorWatt
> 19284 18803 vmstat.system.in
> 32208 -4% 31052 vmstat.system.cs
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.avg.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.max.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1630 ±173% 2e+04 18278 ± 27% latency_stats.sum.perf_event_alloc.SYSC_perf_event_open.SyS_perf_event_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 1.911e+09 ± 6% 163% 5.022e+09 ± 5% perf-stat.cache-references
> 27.58 ± 12% 17% 32.14 ± 7% perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 9881103 -4% 9527607 perf-stat.context-switches
> 9.567e+11 ± 9% -14% 8.181e+11 ± 9% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
> 6.85e+11 ± 4% -16% 5.761e+11 ± 6% perf-stat.branch-instructions
> 3.469e+12 ± 4% -17% 2.893e+12 ± 6% perf-stat.instructions
> 1.24 ± 4% -19% 1.00 perf-stat.ipc
> 3.18 ± 8% -62% 1.19 ± 19% perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>
>
>
> perf-stat.cache-references
>
> 8e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 7e+09 ++ O O |
> | O |
> 6e+09 ++ O |
> | O |
> 5e+09 ++O O O O O O O
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 4e+09 ++ O O O |
> | |
> 3e+09 ++ |
> | *. *.. *. |
> 2e+09 *+ + *.. .*. + *. .*. + *. .*.*. .*.*. .*..* |
> | * *.*.*.*.* * * * *.*. *.* * |
> 1e+09 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.user_time
>
> 30 ++--*-------------------*-----------*----------------------------------+
> 29 *+* *.*.*.*..*.*.*.* *.*.*.*. *.*. *. .*. .*.*.* |
> | *. .. * *.*. |
> 28 ++ * |
> 27 ++ |
> | |
> 26 ++ |
> 25 ++ |
> 24 ++ |
> | |
> 23 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 22 O+O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> | O O O O
> 21 ++ O |
> 20 ++---------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.time.system_time
>
> 358 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 357 O+O O O O O O O O
> | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 356 ++ O O O O O O |
> 355 ++ |
> | |
> 354 ++ |
> 353 ++ |
> 352 ++ |
> | |
> 351 ++ *. .*. .*. |
> 350 *+*. .* * .*.*.*. .* *.*. .* + * *..* *.*.* |
> | *. + + + .*. * + .. * + .* |
> 349 ++ * * * *. |
> 348 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>
> 2.3e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> 2.2e+06 ++*.*. .*. .*..*. .*.*. .*.*. .*.*..*.*.*.*.* |
> * *.* * * *.*.* *.*. .*.* |
> 2.1e+06 ++ * |
> 2e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.9e+06 ++ |
> | |
> 1.8e+06 ++ |
> 1.7e+06 ++ O O O O O O |
> O O O O O O O O O O |
> 1.6e+06 ++ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> | O O |
> 1.5e+06 ++----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
> [*] 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,
> Xiaolong
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
