[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [LKP] Re: [perf/x86] 81ec3f3c4c: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -5.5% regression
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 05:06:33PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> > ffffffff8225b580 d types__ptrace
> > ffffffff8225b5c0 D root_user
> > ffffffff8225b680 D init_user_ns
> I'm assuming this is after the alignment patch (since that's 64-byte
> aligned there).
> What was it without the alignment?

For 5.0-rc6:
ffffffff8225b4c0 d types__ptrace
ffffffff8225b4e0 D root_user
ffffffff8225b580 D init_user_ns

For 5.0-rc6 + 81ec3f3c4c4
ffffffff8225b580 d types__ptrace
ffffffff8225b5a0 D root_user
ffffffff8225b640 D init_user_ns

The sigpending and __count are in the same cachline.

> > No, it's not the biggest, I tried another machine 'Xeon Phi(TM) CPU 7295',
> > which has 72C/288T, and the regression is not seen. This is the part
> > confusing me :)
> Hmm.
> Humor me - what happens if you turn off SMT on that Cascade Lake
> system? Maybe it's about the thread ID bit in the L1? Although again,
> I'd have expected things to get _worse_ if it's the two fields that
> are now in the same cachline thanks to alignment.

I'll try it and report back.

> The Xeon Phi is the small-core setup, right? They may be slow enough
> to not show the issue as clearly despite having more cores. And it
> wouldn't show effects of some out-of-order speculative cache accesses.

Yes, seems the Xeon Phi is using 72 Silvermont cores. And the less bigger
platform I tested was a 2 sockets 48C/96T Cascadelake platform which
doesn't reproduce the regression.


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-24 03:20    [W:0.085 / U:46.372 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site