From: Saeed Mirzamohammadi <saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com>
To: Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"zhangqiao22@huawei.com" <zhangqiao22@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: Reporting a performance regression in sched/fair on Unixbench Shell Scripts with commit a53ce18cacb4
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 19:35:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7C9D3ABF-E878-4B75-9ED6-AD6EFB6243C5@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKfTPtCBQJYfFgFhA6=364onup2TU1hrTxJYJA5OiSJ_ECB0JA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Vincent,
> On Jun 9, 2023, at 9:52 AM, Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Saeed,
>
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 at 00:48, Saeed Mirzamohammadi
> <saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I’m reporting a regression of up to 8% with Unixbench Shell Scripts benchmarks after the following commit:
>>
>> Commit Data:
>> commit-id : a53ce18cacb477dd0513c607f187d16f0fa96f71
>> subject : sched/fair: Sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
>> author : vincent.guittot@linaro.org
>> author date : 2023-03-17 16:08:10
>>
>>
>> We have observed this on our v5.4 and v4.14 kernel and not yet tested 5.15 but I expect the same.
>
> It would be good to confirm that the regression is present on v6.3
> where the patch has been merged originally. It can be that there is
> hidden dependency with other patches introduced since v5.4
Regression is present on v6.3 as well, examples:
ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent: ~6%
ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent: ~8%
ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent: ~2%
>
>
>>
>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -0.01%
>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -0.1%
>> ub_gcc_1copy_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -0.12%%
>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -2.29%%
>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -4.22%
>> ub_gcc_56copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -4.23%
>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -5.54%
>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8%
>> ub_gcc_224copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.05%
>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_1_concurrent : -6.4%
>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_8_concurrent : -8.35%
>> ub_gcc_448copies_Shell_Scripts_16_concurrent : -7.09%
>>
>> Link to unixbench:
>> github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
>
> I tried to reproduce the problem with v6.3 on my system but I don't
> see any difference with or without the patch
>
> Do you have more details on your setup ? number of cpu and topology ?
>
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v4 @ 2.60GHz
Topology:
node 0 1
0: 10 21
1: 21 10
Architecture: x86_64
CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit
CPU(s): 56
On-line CPU(s) list: 0-55
Thread(s) per core: 2
Core(s) per socket: 14
Socket(s): 2
NUMA node(s): 2
Thanks,
>>
>> Info about benchmark:
>> "The shells scripts test measures the number of times per minute a
>> process can start and reap a set of one, two, four and eight concurrent
>> copies of a shell scripts where the shell script applies a series of
>> transformation to a data file”
>>
>> I have also evaluated performance before and after both of these two commits (one if fixing the other) but I still observe the same regression (C1 is still the source of regression).
>> C1. a53ce18cacb4 sched/fair: Sanitize vruntime of entity being migrated
>> C2. 829c1651e9c4 sched/fair: sanitize vruntime of entity being placed
>
> C2 has introduced some regressions because of the case of newly
> migrated tasks that were not correctly managed and C1 fixes this
> problem. Then, both have an impact on system that runs for days with
> low prio task
>
> Thanks,
> Vincent
>
>
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>> Saeed
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-13 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-08 22:48 Reporting a performance regression in sched/fair on Unixbench Shell Scripts with commit a53ce18cacb4 Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-06-09 16:52 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-06-13 19:35 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi [this message]
2023-06-14 6:37 ` Chen Yu
2023-06-21 16:41 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-06-29 22:19 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-06-30 8:28 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-07-20 23:04 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
2023-07-21 14:01 ` Vincent Guittot
2023-07-26 0:03 ` Saeed Mirzamohammadi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=7C9D3ABF-E878-4B75-9ED6-AD6EFB6243C5@oracle.com \
--to=saeed.mirzamohammadi@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=zhangqiao22@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).