Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:10:31 +0800 | From | Aaron Lu <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression |
| |
On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 07:53:38PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> It doesn't make much sense to me. the codes I added cannot be > >> triggered without enable any pr policies. and I also did the tests in > > > > It seems these pr policies has to be turned on by user space, i.e. > > netperf in this case? > > > > I checked netperf's source code, it doesn't seem set any option > > related to SCTP PR POLICY but I'm new to network code so I could be > > wrong or missing something. > > > >> my local environment, the result looks normal to me compare to > >> prior version. > > > > Can you share your number? > > We run netperf like this: > > netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 > > The full log of the run is attached for your reference. > > Now I also changed to linux-net.git > > commit 96b585267f552d4b6a28ea8bd75e5ed03deb6e71 > [root@hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# uname -r > 4.7.0.new > [root@hp-dl388g8-08 ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- > -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 > SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to > 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv > Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB > > 212992 212992 10240 300.00 11814.56 4.65 4.65 0.775 0.774 > > > commit f959fb442c35f4b61fea341401b8463dd0a1b959 (just before the buggie patch)
I'm testing on Linus' master, can we all use that please?
> [root@localhost ~]# netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m > 10K -H 127.0.0.1 > SCTP 1-TO-MANY STREAM TEST from 0.0.0.0 (0.0.0.0) port 0 AF_INET to > 127.0.0.1 () port 0 AF_INET > Recv Send Send Utilization Service Demand > Socket Socket Message Elapsed Send Recv Send Recv > Size Size Size Time Throughput local remote local remote > bytes bytes bytes secs. 10^6bits/s % S % S us/KB us/KB > > 212992 212992 10240 300.00 9454.90 5.22 5.22 1.086 1.085 > > > I did tests on physical machine. > did you do it on guest ?
The test is done on a ivy-bridge desktop with 8G memory: # cpudesc : Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-3220 CPU @ 3.30GHz # total memory : 8058152 kB
> > > > >> > >> Recently the sctp performance is not stable, as during these patches, > >> netperf cannot get the result, but return ENOTCONN. which may > >> also affect the testing. anyway we've fixed the -ENOTCONN issue > >> already in the latest version. > > > > I tested commit 96b585267f55, which is Linus' git tree HEAD on 08/03, I > > guess the fix you mentioned should already be in there? But > > unfortunately, the throughput of netperf is still at low number(we did > > the test 5 times): > > $ cat */netperf.json > > { > > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ > > 2470.6974999999998 > > ] > > }{ > > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ > > 2486.7675 > > ] > > }{ > > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ > > 2478.945 > > ] > > }{ > > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ > > 2429.465 > > ] > > }{ > > "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ > > 2476.9150000000004 > > ] > > > > Considering what you have said that the patch shouldn't make a > > difference, the performance drop is really confusing. Any idea what > > could be the cause? Thanks. > Now I saw your tests result against the new kernel > > Could you do the same test on the kernel before the problematic commit ?
Yes, the throughput of its parent commit is higer enough to trigger the automatic bisect and then we send out the report.
Throughput of its parent commit 826d253d57b1("sctp: add SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS on sctp sockopt"): Average: "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": 3923.84375,
$ cat */netperf.json { "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ 3869.25375 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ 3952.58875 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ 3936.89625 ] }{ "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [ 3936.63625 ] }
Feel free to let me know if you need any more information or you want me to do more tests on other commits/machines, thanks.
Regards, Aaron
| |