On 2023/12/20 13:27, Yang Shi wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 7:41 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
for this commit, we reported
"[mm] 96db82a66d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -95.3% regression"
in Aug, 2022 when it's in linux-next/master
https://lore.kernel.org/all/YwIoiIYo4qsYBcgd@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/
later, we reported
"[mm] f35b5d7d67: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -95.5% regression"
in Oct, 2022 when it's in linus/master
https://lore.kernel.org/all/202210181535.7144dd15-yujie.liu@xxxxxxxxx/
and the commit was reverted finally by
commit 0ba09b1733878afe838fe35c310715fda3d46428
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun Dec 4 12:51:59 2022 -0800
now we noticed it goes into linux-next/master again.
we are not sure if there is an agreement that the benefit of this commit
has already overweight performance drop in some mirco benchmark.
we also noticed from https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231214223423.1133074-1-yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
that
"This patch was applied to v6.1, but was reverted due to a regression
report. However it turned out the regression was not due to this patch.
I ping'ed Andrew to reapply this patch, Andrew may forget it. This
patch helps promote THP, so I rebased it onto the latest mm-unstable."
IIRC, Huang Ying's analysis showed the regression for will-it-scale
micro benchmark is fine, it was actually reverted due to kernel build
regression with LLVM reported by Nathan Chancellor. Then the
regression was resolved by commit
81e506bec9be1eceaf5a2c654e28ba5176ef48d8 ("mm/thp: check and bail out
if page in deferred queue already"). And this patch did improve kernel
build with GCC by ~3% if I remember correctly.
however, unfortunately, in our latest tests, we still observed below regression
upon this commit. just FYI.
kernel test robot noticed a -84.3% regression of stress-ng.pthread.ops_per_sec on:
Interesting, wasn't the same regression seen last time? And I'm a
little bit confused about how pthread got regressed. I didn't see the
pthread benchmark do any intensive memory alloc/free operations. Do
the pthread APIs do any intensive memory operations? I saw the
benchmark does allocate memory for thread stack, but it should be just
8K per thread, so it should not trigger what this patch does. With
1024 threads, the thread stacks may get merged into one single VMA (8M
total), but it may do so even though the patch is not applied.
stress-ng.pthread test code is strange here:
https://github.com/ColinIanKing/stress-ng/blob/master/stress-pthread.c#L573
Even it allocates its own stack, but that attr is not passed
to pthread_create. So it's still glibc to allocate stack for
pthread which is 8M size. This is why this patch can impact
the stress-ng.pthread testing.
My understanding is this is different regression (if it's a valid
regression). The previous hotspot was in:
deferred_split_huge_page
deferred_split_huge_page
deferred_split_huge_page
spin_lock
while this time, the hotspot is in (pmd_lock from do_madvise I suppose):
- 55.02% zap_pmd_range.isra.0
- 53.42% __split_huge_pmd
- 51.74% _raw_spin_lock
- 51.73% native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath
+ 3.03% asm_sysvec_call_function
- 1.67% __split_huge_pmd_locked
- 0.87% pmdp_invalidate
+ 0.86% flush_tlb_mm_range
- 1.60% zap_pte_range
- 1.04% page_remove_rmap
0.55% __mod_lruvec_page_state
commit: 1111d46b5cbad57486e7a3fab75888accac2f072 ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
testcase: stress-ng
test machine: 36 threads 1 sockets Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-10980XE CPU @ 3.00GHz (Cascade Lake) with 128G memory
parameters:
nr_threads: 1
disk: 1HDD
testtime: 60s
fs: ext4
class: os
test: pthread
cpufreq_governor: performance
In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| testcase: change | stream: stream.triad_bandwidth_MBps -12.1% regression |
| test machine | 224 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8480CTDX (Sapphire Rapids) with 512G memory |
| test parameters | array_size=50000000 |
| | cpufreq_governor=performance |
| | iterations=10x |
| | loop=100 |
| | nr_threads=25% |
| | omp=true |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| testcase: change | phoronix-test-suite: phoronix-test-suite.ramspeed.Average.Integer.mb_s -3.5% regression |
| test machine | 12 threads 1 sockets Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz (Coffee Lake) with 16G memory |
| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
| | option_a=Average |
| | option_b=Integer |
| | test=ramspeed-1.4.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| testcase: change | phoronix-test-suite: phoronix-test-suite.ramspeed.Average.FloatingPoint.mb_s -3.0% regression |
| test machine | 12 threads 1 sockets Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz (Coffee Lake) with 16G memory |
| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance |
| | option_a=Average |
| | option_b=Floating Point |
| | test=ramspeed-1.4.3 |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
| Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>
| Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202312192310.56367035-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231219/202312192310.56367035-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx
=========================================================================================
class/compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/testtime:
os/gcc-12/performance/1HDD/ext4/x86_64-rhel-8.3/1/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/lkp-csl-d02/pthread/stress-ng/60s
commit:
30749e6fbb ("mm/memory: replace kmap() with kmap_local_page()")
1111d46b5c ("mm: align larger anonymous mappings on THP boundaries")
30749e6fbb3d391a 1111d46b5cbad57486e7a3fab75
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
13405796 -65.5% 4620124 cpuidle..usage
8.00 +8.2% 8.66 ą 2% iostat.cpu.system
1.61 -60.6% 0.63 iostat.cpu.user
597.50 ą 14% -64.3% 213.50 ą 14% perf-c2c.DRAM.local
1882 ą 14% -74.7% 476.83 ą 7% perf-c2c.HITM.local
3768436 -12.9% 3283395 vmstat.memory.cache
355105 -75.7% 86344 ą 3% vmstat.system.cs
385435 -20.7% 305714 ą 3% vmstat.system.in
1.13 -0.2 0.88 mpstat.cpu.all.irq%
0.29 -0.2 0.10 ą 2% mpstat.cpu.all.soft%
6.76 ą 2% +1.1 7.88 ą 2% mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
1.62 -1.0 0.62 ą 2% mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
2234397 -84.3% 350161 ą 5% stress-ng.pthread.ops
37237 -84.3% 5834 ą 5% stress-ng.pthread.ops_per_sec
294706 ą 2% -68.0% 94191 ą 6% stress-ng.time.involuntary_context_switches
41442 ą 2% +5023.4% 2123284 stress-ng.time.maximum_resident_set_size
4466457 -83.9% 717053 ą 5% stress-ng.time.minor_page_faults
The larger RSS and fewer page faults are expected.
243.33 +13.5% 276.17 ą 3% stress-ng.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
131.64 +27.7% 168.11 ą 3% stress-ng.time.system_time
19.73 -82.1% 3.53 ą 4% stress-ng.time.user_time
Much less user time. And it seems to match the drop of the pthread metric.
7715609 -80.2% 1530125 ą 4% stress-ng.time.voluntary_context_switches
76728 -80.8% 14724 ą 4% perf-stat.i.minor-faults
5600408 -61.4% 2160997 ą 5% perf-stat.i.node-loads
8873996 +52.1% 13499744 ą 5% perf-stat.i.node-stores
112409 -81.9% 20305 ą 4% perf-stat.i.page-faults
2.55 +89.6% 4.83 perf-stat.overall.MPKI
Much more TLB misses.
1.51 -0.4 1.13 perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
19.26 +24.5 43.71 perf-stat.overall.cache-miss-rate%
1.70 +56.4% 2.65 perf-stat.overall.cpi
665.84 -17.5% 549.51 ą 2% perf-stat.overall.cycles-between-cache-misses
0.12 ą 4% -0.1 0.04 perf-stat.overall.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
0.08 ą 2% -0.0 0.03 perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
59.16 +0.9 60.04 perf-stat.overall.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
1278 +86.1% 2379 ą 2% perf-stat.overall.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
0.59 -36.1% 0.38 perf-stat.overall.ipc
Worse IPC and CPI.
2.078e+09 -48.3% 1.074e+09 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
31292687 -61.2% 12133349 ą 2% perf-stat.ps.branch-misses
26057291 -5.9% 24512034 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.cache-misses
1.353e+08 -58.6% 56072195 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.cache-references
365254 -75.8% 88464 ą 3% perf-stat.ps.context-switches
1.735e+10 -22.4% 1.346e+10 ą 2% perf-stat.ps.cpu-cycles
60838 -79.1% 12727 ą 6% perf-stat.ps.cpu-migrations
3056601 ą 4% -81.5% 565354 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-load-misses
2.636e+09 -50.7% 1.3e+09 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads
1155253 ą 2% -83.0% 196581 ą 5% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-store-misses
1.473e+09 -57.4% 6.268e+08 ą 3% perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
7997726 -73.3% 2131477 ą 3% perf-stat.ps.iTLB-load-misses
5521346 -74.3% 1418623 ą 2% perf-stat.ps.iTLB-loads
1.023e+10 -50.4% 5.073e+09 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.instructions
75671 -80.9% 14479 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.minor-faults
5549722 -61.4% 2141750 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.node-loads
8769156 +51.6% 13296579 ą 5% perf-stat.ps.node-stores
110795 -82.0% 19977 ą 4% perf-stat.ps.page-faults
6.482e+11 -50.7% 3.197e+11 ą 4% perf-stat.total.instructions
0.00 ą 37% -100.0% 0.00 perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.__cond_resched.__kmem_cache_alloc_node.__kmalloc_node.memcg_alloc_slab_cgroups.allocate_slab
0.01 ą 18% +8373.1% 0.73 ą 49% perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.__cond_resched.down_read.do_madvise.__x64_sys_madvise.do_syscall_64
0.01 ą 16% +4600.0% 0.38 ą 24% perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.__cond_resched.down_read.exit_mm.do_exit.__x64_sys_exit
More time spent in madvise and munmap. but I'm not sure whether this
is caused by tearing down the address space when exiting the test. If
so it should not count in the regression.
It's not for the whole address space tearing down. It's for pthread
stack tearing down when pthread exit (can be treated as address space
tearing down? I suppose so).
https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/nptl/allocatestack.c#L384
https://github.com/lattera/glibc/blob/master/nptl/pthread_create.c#L576
Another thing is whether it's worthy to make stack use THP? It may be
useful for some apps which need large stack size?
Regards
Yin, Fengwei
