Hi, Xiao Ni
Sorry for the late response.
On 04/24, Xiao Ni wrote:
>Hi all
>
>It's the first time I received such report. So I took some time reading
>the manual of lkp and aim7. And I reserved one server with fedora and
>did a test with the steps in this email. It failed like this:
>
>2018-04-25 02:43:19 echo "/fs/md0" > config
>2018-04-25 02:43:19
> (
> echo storageqe-07.lab.bos.redhat.com
> echo sync_disk_rw
>
> echo 1
> echo 600
> echo 2
> echo 600
> echo 1
> ) | ./multitask -t
>
>AIM Multiuser Benchmark - Suite VII v1.1, January 22, 1996
>Copyright (c) 1996 - 2001 Caldera International, Inc.
>All Rights Reserved.
>
>Machine's name : Machine's configuration : Number of iterations to run [1 to 10] :
>Information for iteration #1
>Starting number of operation loads [1 to 10000] : 1) Run to crossover
>2) Run to specific operation load Enter [1 or 2]: Maximum number of operation loads to simulate [600 to 10000]: Operation load increment [1 to 100] :
>Using disk directory </fs/md0>
>HZ is <100>
>AIM Multiuser Benchmark - Suite VII Run Beginning
>
>Tasks jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
> 600/root/lkp-tests/bin/run-local:142:in `system': Interrupt
> from /root/lkp-tests/bin/run-local:142:in `<main>'
>
Seems there are flaws in our reproduce script, we'll look into it.
>So now I can't understand these information from this report.
>What does "-10.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min" mean? And
>what's the usage of aim7.jobs-per-min? Could anyone help to
>give some suggestions? What should I do to resolve such problem?
>
Here "-10.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min" means the value of aim7.jobs-per-min
in test for commit 0ffbb1adf8 is 10.6% less compared to its parent commit v4.16
(0day bot captured your email patch and applied it on top of v4.16).
aim7.jobs-per-min was obtained through the raw output of aim7 test, such as below:
AIM Multiuser Benchmark - Suite VII v1.1, January 22, 1996
Copyright (c) 1996 - 2001 Caldera International, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.
Machine's name : Machine's configuration : Number of iterations to run [1 to 10] :
Information for iteration #1
Starting number of operation loads [1 to 10000] : 1) Run to crossover
2) Run to specific operation load Enter [1 or 2]: Maximum number of operation loads to simulate [600 to 10000]: Operation load increment [1 to 100] :
Using disk directory </fs/md0>
HZ is <100>
AIM Multiuser Benchmark - Suite VII Run Beginning
Tasks jobs/min jti jobs/min/task real cpu
600 1466.27 99 2.4438 2455.21 92829.76 Fri Apr 20 10:28:19 2018
AIM Multiuser Benchmark - Suite VII
Testing over
aim7.jobs-per-min is the main kpi for aim7 tests, other numbers listed in comparison
are less important, they are collected through multiple monitors (vmstat, mpstat) running in the background.
We hope they can help you evaluate your patch in a complete way.
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>Best Regards
>Xiao
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "kernel test robot" <xiaolong.ye@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Xiao Ni" <xni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, shli@xxxxxxxxxx, "ming lei" <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>, ncroxon@xxxxxxxxxx,
>> neilb@xxxxxxxx, lkp@xxxxxx
>> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 8:41:43 AM
>> Subject: [lkp-robot] [MD] 0ffbb1adf8: aim7.jobs-per-min -10.6% regression
>>
>>
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -10.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: 0ffbb1adf8b448568b44fe44c5fcdcf485040365 ("MD: fix lock contention
>> for flush bios")
>> url:
>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Xiao-Ni/MD-fix-lock-contention-for-flush-bios/20180411-040300
>>
>>
>> in testcase: aim7
>> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz with
>> 384G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> disk: 4BRD_12G
>> md: RAID1
>> fs: xfs
>> test: sync_disk_rw
>> load: 600
>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>
>> test-description: AIM7 is a traditional UNIX system level benchmark suite
>> which is used to test and measure the performance of multiuser system.
>> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/aimbench/files/aim-suite7/
>>
>>
>>
>> Details are as below:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>>
>> To reproduce:
>>
>> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
>> cd lkp-tests
>> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/load/md/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-7/performance/4BRD_12G/xfs/x86_64-rhel-7.2/600/RAID1/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-ivb-ep01/sync_disk_rw/aim7
>>
>> commit:
>> v4.16
>> 0ffbb1adf8 ("MD: fix lock contention for flush bios")
>>
>> v4.16 0ffbb1adf8b448568b44fe44c5
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 1632 ± 2% -10.6% 1458 aim7.jobs-per-min
>> 2207 ± 2% +11.8% 2468 aim7.time.elapsed_time
>> 2207 ± 2% +11.8% 2468 aim7.time.elapsed_time.max
>> 51186515 -51.5% 24800655
>> aim7.time.involuntary_context_switches
>> 146259 ± 8% +31.7% 192669 ± 2% aim7.time.minor_page_faults
>> 80457 ± 2% +15.9% 93267 aim7.time.system_time
>> 50.25 ± 2% +11.8% 56.17 aim7.time.user_time
>> 7.257e+08 ± 2% +7.3% 7.787e+08
>> aim7.time.voluntary_context_switches
>> 520491 ± 61% +53.8% 800775
>> interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
>> 2463 ± 18% +31.7% 3246 ± 15% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
>> 4.06 ± 2% -0.5 3.51 mpstat.cpu.idle%
>> 0.24 ± 6% -0.1 0.15 mpstat.cpu.iowait%
>> 8829533 +16.2% 10256984 softirqs.SCHED
>> 33149109 ± 2% +12.3% 37229216 softirqs.TIMER
>> 4724795 ± 33% +38.5% 6544104 cpuidle.C1E.usage
>> 7.151e+08 ± 40% -37.8% 4.449e+08 cpuidle.C6.time
>> 3881055 ±122% -85.7% 553608 ± 2% cpuidle.C6.usage
>> 61107 ± 2% -10.7% 54566 vmstat.io.bo
>> 2.60 ± 18% -51.9% 1.25 ± 34% vmstat.procs.b
>> 305.10 -16.1% 256.00 vmstat.procs.r
>> 404271 -11.3% 358644 vmstat.system.cs
>> 167773 -16.5% 140121 vmstat.system.in
>> 115358 ± 9% +39.9% 161430 ± 3% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults
>> 62520 ± 10% +47.6% 92267 ± 4%
>> proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
>> 20893 ± 10% +29.0% 26948 ± 2% proc-vmstat.numa_pages_migrated
>> 116983 ± 9% +39.5% 163161 ± 3% proc-vmstat.numa_pte_updates
>> 5504935 ± 3% +12.3% 6179561 proc-vmstat.pgfault
>> 20893 ± 10% +29.0% 26948 ± 2% proc-vmstat.pgmigrate_success
>> 2.68 ± 3% -0.2 2.44 turbostat.C1%
>> 4724733 ± 33% +38.5% 6544028 turbostat.C1E
>> 3879529 ±122% -85.8% 552056 ± 2% turbostat.C6
>> 0.82 ± 43% -0.4 0.45 turbostat.C6%
>> 3.62 ± 2% -15.1% 3.08 turbostat.CPU%c1
>> 176728 ± 2% +13.3% 200310 turbostat.SMI
>> 9.893e+12 ± 65% +57.6% 1.559e+13 perf-stat.branch-instructions
>> 3.022e+10 ± 65% +46.6% 4.43e+10 perf-stat.branch-misses
>> 11.31 ± 65% +5.5 16.78 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>> 2.821e+10 ± 65% +50.4% 4.243e+10 perf-stat.cache-misses
>> 1.796e+14 ± 65% +58.4% 2.845e+14 perf-stat.cpu-cycles
>> 26084177 ± 65% +176.3% 72073346 perf-stat.cpu-migrations
>> 1.015e+13 ± 65% +57.3% 1.597e+13 perf-stat.dTLB-loads
>> 1.125e+12 ± 65% +45.6% 1.638e+12 perf-stat.dTLB-stores
>> 4.048e+13 ± 65% +57.3% 6.367e+13 perf-stat.instructions
>> 4910 ± 65% +57.5% 7734
>> perf-stat.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
>> 3847673 ± 65% +57.4% 6057388 perf-stat.minor-faults
>> 1.403e+10 ± 65% +51.8% 2.13e+10 perf-stat.node-load-misses
>> 1.557e+10 ± 65% +51.0% 2.351e+10 perf-stat.node-loads
>> 27.41 ± 65% +12.1 39.52 perf-stat.node-store-miss-rate%
>> 7.828e+09 ± 65% +53.2% 1.199e+10 perf-stat.node-store-misses
>> 1.216e+10 ± 65% +50.9% 1.835e+10 perf-stat.node-stores
>> 3847675 ± 65% +57.4% 6057392 perf-stat.page-faults
>> 1041337 ± 2% +12.0% 1166774
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.avg
>> 1045329 ± 2% +11.8% 1168250
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.max
>> 1037380 ± 2% +12.3% 1165349
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.min
>> 3670 ± 16% -70.1% 1098 ± 50%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.stddev
>> 234.08 ± 3% -22.4% 181.73
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
>> 33.65 ± 2% -59.3% 13.70 ± 3%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.min
>> 36305683 ± 2% +12.4% 40814603
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.avg
>> 37771587 ± 2% +11.1% 41960294
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.max
>> 34884765 ± 2% +13.6% 39635549
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
>> 1277146 ± 9% -21.8% 998594 ± 4%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.stddev
>> 1.99 ± 5% -16.8% 1.65 ± 3%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_running.max
>> 19.18 ± 5% +20.3% 23.08
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_spread_over.avg
>> 8.47 ± 18% +23.8% 10.49 ± 12%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_spread_over.min
>> 22.06 ± 7% -18.2% 18.05 ± 6%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_load_avg.avg
>> 0.08 ± 38% -50.5% 0.04 ± 20% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread.avg
>> 1277131 ± 9% -21.8% 998584 ± 4%
>> sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.stddev
>> 177058 ± 7% -23.5% 135429 sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.max
>> 33859 ± 6% -24.6% 25519 sched_debug.cpu.avg_idle.stddev
>> 1119705 ± 2% +11.0% 1242378 sched_debug.cpu.clock.avg
>> 1119726 ± 2% +11.0% 1242399 sched_debug.cpu.clock.max
>> 1119680 ± 2% +11.0% 1242353 sched_debug.cpu.clock.min
>> 1119705 ± 2% +11.0% 1242378 sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.avg
>> 1119726 ± 2% +11.0% 1242399 sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.max
>> 1119680 ± 2% +11.0% 1242353 sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.min
>> 3.47 ± 11% +28.4% 4.45 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[1].min
>> 28.92 ± 4% -7.8% 26.66 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[2].avg
>> 5.65 ± 7% +37.9% 7.80 ± 8% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[2].min
>> 29.97 ± 3% -7.9% 27.60 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[3].avg
>> 8.22 ± 4% +31.9% 10.83 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[3].min
>> 10.50 ± 5% +24.0% 13.02 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu.cpu_load[4].min
>> 2596 ± 4% -9.2% 2358 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.avg
>> 4463 ± 4% -13.5% 3862 ± 3%
>> sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.stddev
>> 1139237 ± 2% +11.5% 1269690
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.avg
>> 1146166 ± 2% +11.2% 1274264
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.max
>> 1133061 ± 2% +11.4% 1262298
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.min
>> 3943 ± 9% -32.4% 2666 ± 23%
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_load_updates.stddev
>> 8814 ± 7% +17.8% 10386 ± 2%
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.max
>> -3613 +32.3% -4782
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.min
>> 2999 ± 4% +13.1% 3391
>> sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
>> 42794 ± 15% -76.8% 9921 ± 90%
>> sched_debug.cpu.sched_goidle.stddev
>> 652177 +14.4% 745857 sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.avg
>> 684397 +17.7% 805440 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.max
>> 622628 +12.0% 697353 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.min
>> 16189 ± 33% +128.0% 36916 ± 47%
>> sched_debug.cpu.ttwu_local.stddev
>> 1119677 ± 2% +11.0% 1242351 sched_debug.cpu_clk
>> 1119677 ± 2% +11.0% 1242351 sched_debug.ktime
>> 1120113 ± 2% +11.0% 1242771 sched_debug.sched_clk
>>
>>
>> aim7.jobs-per-min
>>
>> 1750 +-+------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | |
>> 1700 +-+ + .+.+ .+.+ |
>> 1650 +-+ + + .+ : .+ : |
>> | .+.+.+. + .+.+.+ +. + : +. + : |
>> 1600 +-+ + : + .+.+ +..+. + +. + +.+. + +.|
>> | + : + + + + |
>> 1550 +-+ + |
>> | |
>> 1500 +-+ |
>> 1450 +-O O O O O O O |
>> O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
>> 1400 +-+ O O O |
>> | |
>> 1350 +-+------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>> [*] 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
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
