lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [x86/copy_mc] a0ac629ebe: fio.read_iops -43.3% regression
On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 8:35 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> * Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 6:35 AM Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > * kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Greeting,
> > > >
> > > > FYI, we noticed a -43.3% regression of fio.read_iops due to commit:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > commit: a0ac629ebe7b3d248cb93807782a00d9142fdb98 ("x86/copy_mc: Introduce copy_mc_generic()")
> > > > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Dan-Williams/Renovate-memcpy_mcsafe-with-copy_mc_to_-user-kernel/20200802-014046
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > in testcase: fio-basic
> > > > on test machine: 96 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU @ 2.10GHz with 256G memory
> > > > with following parameters:
> > >
> > > So this performance regression, if it isn't a spurious result, looks
> > > concerning. Is this expected?
> >
> > This is not expected and I think delays these patches until I'm back
> > from leave in a few weeks. I know that we might lose some inlining
> > effect due to replacing native memcpy, but I did not expect it would
> > have an impact like this. In my testing I was seeing a performance
> > improvement from replacing the careful / open-coded copy with rep;
> > mov;, which increases the surprise of this result.
>
> It would be nice to double check this on the kernel-test-robot side as
> well, to make sure it's not a false positive.

Circling back to this, I found the bug. This incremental patch nearly
doubles the iops in the case when copy_mc_fragile() is enabled because
it was turning around and redoing the copy with copy_mc_generic(). So
this would have been a regression for existing systems that indicate
that "carefu/fragilel" copying can avoid some PCC=1 machine checks. My
performance checkout was comparing copy_mc_fragile() and
copy_mc_generic() in isolation. Refreshed patches inbound.

diff --git a/arch/x86/lib/copy_mc.c b/arch/x86/lib/copy_mc.c
index 9e6fac1ab72e..afac844c8f45 100644
--- a/arch/x86/lib/copy_mc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/lib/copy_mc.c
@@ -58,7 +58,8 @@ copy_mc_to_user(void *to, const void *from, unsigned len)
__uaccess_begin();
if (static_branch_unlikely(&copy_mc_fragile_key))
ret = copy_mc_fragile(to, from, len);
- ret = copy_mc_generic(to, from, len);
+ else
+ ret = copy_mc_generic(to, from, len);
__uaccess_end();
return ret;
}
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-23 02:27    [W:0.055 / U:5.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site