Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:31:24 +0800 | From | Aaron Lu <> | Subject | Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps |
| |
On 07/25/2014 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >>>> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >>>> >>>> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >>>> --------------- ------------------------- >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps >>> >>> Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my >> >> The cmdline for this test is: >> netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > > Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still > expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no > matter, I was just curious.
The bisect is done by the LKP test system(developed by Fengguang) automatically so it's not that painful for me :-) But as you have said, the 1.5% change is too small and probably doesn't worth a report, I'll be more careful next time when examining the report.
> > Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if > it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to > remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because
The CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is set to y, I'll disable it to see if the number changes, thanks for the tips.
Regards, Aaron
> your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. > > -Mike >
| |