[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [LKP] [lkp] [xfs] 68a9f5e700: -13.6% regression
Hi, Linus,

Linus Torvalds <> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Dave Chinner <> wrote:
>> That, to me, says there's a change in lock contention behaviour in
>> the workload (which we know aim7 is good at exposing). i.e. the
>> iomap change shifted contention from a sleeping lock to a spinning
>> lock, or maybe we now trigger optimistic spinning behaviour on a
>> lock we previously didn't spin on at all.
> Hmm. Possibly. I reacted to the lower cpu load number, but yeah, I
> could easily imagine some locking primitive difference too.
>> We really need instruction level perf profiles to understand
>> this - I don't have a machine with this many cpu cores available
>> locally, so I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make any progress
>> tracking it down in the short term. Maybe the lkp team has more
>> in-depth cpu usage profiles they can share?
> Yeah, I've occasionally wanted to see some kind of "top-25 kernel
> functions in the profile" thing. That said, when the load isn't all
> that familiar, the profiles usually are not all that easy to make
> sense of either. But comparing the before and after state might give
> us clues.

I have started perf-profile data collection, will send out the
comparison result soon.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying

 \ /
  Last update: 2016-08-11 02:41    [W:0.119 / U:0.392 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site