lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [sched/cfs] 625ed2bf04: unixbench.score -7.4% regression
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 01:57:39PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
> kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> writes:
>
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -7.4% regression of unixbench.score due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 625ed2bf049d5a352c1bcca962d6e133454eaaff ("sched/cfs: Make util/load_avg more stable")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >
> > in testcase: unixbench
> > on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 64G memory
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > runtime: 300s
> > nr_task: 100%
> > test: spawn
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> >
> > test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system.
> >
>
> This has been merged by v4.13-rc1, so we checked it again. If my
> understanding were correct, the patch changes the algorithm to calculate
> the load of CPU, so it influences the load balance behavior for this
> test case.
>
> 4.73 ± 8% -31.3% 3.25 ± 10% sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.max
> 0.95 ± 5% -29.0% 0.67 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.stddev
>
> As above, the effect is that the tasks are distributed into more CPUs,
> that is, system is more balanced. But this triggered more contention on
> tasklist_lock, so hurt the unixbench score, as below.
>
> 26.60 -10.6 16.05 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.intel_idle.cpuidle_enter_state.cpuidle_enter.call_cpuidle.do_idle
> 10.10 +2.4 12.53 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_write_lock_irq.do_exit.do_group_exit.sys_exit_group.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 8.03 +2.6 10.63 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_write_lock_irq.release_task.wait_consider_task.do_wait.sys_wait4
> 17.98 +5.2 23.14 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_read_lock.do_wait.sys_wait4.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
> 7.47 +5.9 13.33 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp._raw_write_lock_irq.copy_process._do_fork.sys_clone.do_syscall_64
>
>
> The patch makes the tasks distributed more balanced, so I think
> scheduler do better job here. The problem is that the tasklist_lock
> isn't scalable. But considering this is only a micro-benchmark which
> specially exercises fork/exit/wait syscall, this may be not a big
> problem in reality.
>
> So, all in all, I think we can ignore this regression.

Thanks for looking at this!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-28 11:15    [W:0.189 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site