Re: [lkp] [perf powerpc] 18d1796d0b: [No primary change]

From	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [lkp] [perf powerpc] 18d1796d0b: [No primary change]
Date	2016-10-25 11:10 +0200
Message-ID	<sw5U6-3BL-33@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<spg7T-6F-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sw3IB-1ZK-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 02:40:13PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> [will-it-scale] perf-stat.branch-miss-rate +7.4% regression 
> Reply-To: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>
> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 6/20/10
> 
> 
> FYI, we noticed a +7.4% regression of perf-stat.branch-miss-rate due to commit:
> 
> commit 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2ad3f7510ffbaa9 ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux Jiri-Olsa/perf-powerpc-Don-t-call-perf_event_disable-from-atomic-context/20161006-203500
> 
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 32 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2680 0 @ 2.70GHz with 64G memory
> with following parameters:
> 
> 	test: poll2
> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> 
> 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.

> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> 
> 
> To reproduce:
> 
>         git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/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/kconfig/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>   gcc-6/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-sb03/poll2/will-it-scale
> 
> commit: 
>   41aad2a6d4 (" perf/core improvements and fixes:")
>   18d1796d0b ("perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic context")
> 
> 41aad2a6d4fcdda8 18d1796d0b45762ec6f58c5ed2 
> ---------------- -------------------------- 
>        fail:runs  %reproduction    fail:runs
>            |             |             |    
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \  
>       0.19 ±  0%      +7.4%       0.21 ±  0%  perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
>  9.591e+09 ±  1%      +9.1%  1.047e+10 ±  0%  perf-stat.branch-misses
>  1.962e+09 ±  0%      +2.3%  2.008e+09 ±  1%  perf-stat.cache-references
>      51.18 ±  2%      +5.6%      54.06 ±  1%  perf-stat.iTLB-load-miss-rate%
>   46430577 ±  5%      -6.9%   43241506 ±  2%  perf-stat.iTLB-loads
>       9.90 ±  4%      +9.3%      10.82 ±  4%  turbostat.Pkg%pc2
>      62066 ± 24%     +34.7%      83582 ± 11%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active
>      49531 ± 30%     +42.9%      70778 ± 13%  numa-meminfo.node1.Active(anon)
>      27883 ±100%    -100.0%       0.00 ± -1%  latency_stats.avg.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>      27883 ±100%    -100.0%       0.00 ± -1%  latency_stats.max.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>      32685 ± 38%     +88.5%      61603 ±147%  latency_stats.sum.call_rwsem_down_write_failed.path_openat.do_filp_open.do_sys_open.SyS_open.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
>      27883 ±100%    -100.0%       0.00 ± -1%  latency_stats.sum.proc_cgroup_show.proc_single_show.seq_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.do_syscall_64.return_from_SYSCALL_64
>      92795 ±  4%      -8.6%      84853 ±  6%  numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
>      92782 ±  4%      -8.5%      84851 ±  6%  numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
>      12381 ± 30%     +42.9%      17694 ± 13%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_active_anon
>      12381 ± 30%     +42.9%      17694 ± 13%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_active_anon
>      21.80 ± 59%     -69.8%       6.58 ± 83%  sched_debug.cpu.clock.stddev
>      21.80 ± 59%     -69.8%       6.58 ± 83%  sched_debug.cpu.clock_task.stddev
>       0.00 ± 23%     -34.3%       0.00 ± 20%  sched_debug.cpu.next_balance.stddev
>      35829 ±  9%     -18.4%      29221 ±  6%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
>       8361 ±  6%     -13.4%       7243 ±  7%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
>       8.43 ± 11%     -25.2%       6.30 ± 12%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_uninterruptible.stddev
>      18057 ±  6%     -14.3%      15482 ±  8%  sched_debug.cpu.sched_count.stddev
> 

ARGH... so what is the normal metric for this test and did that change?
And why can't I still find that? These reports suck!

The result doesn't make sense, my gcc inlines the function call, the
emitted code is very similar to the old code, with exception of one
extra symbol.

Are you sure this isn't simple run to run variation?

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [lkp] [perf powerpc]  18d1796d0b: [No primary change] Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-25 11:10 +0200
  Re: [LKP] [lkp] [perf powerpc]  18d1796d0b: [No primary change] "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> - 2016-10-26 04:10 +0200
    [PATCHv3] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from atomic  context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-26 11:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCHv3] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from  atomic context Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-10-26 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCHv3] perf powerpc: Don't call perf_event_disable from  atomic context Jiri Olsa <jolsa@redhat.com> - 2016-10-26 17:30 +0200

csiph-web