From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6AACFB448 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:58:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 192966B00A1; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 142DF6B00A2; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:58:45 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 009D36B00A3; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:58:44 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0012.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.12]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47DA6B00A1 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 11:58:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin05.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527A61C6F29 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:58:44 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82647264168.05.798C790 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84BC21C0008 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:58:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of christian.loehle@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian.loehle@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1728316587; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Ej26qsar0Mxu3tfxB9t4cKGloPhdiPQe7DK7rxfWTHk=; b=2u4u0jlNo4Mo2BeNDw9cZEhsApz18H/K7UmLJhVflQF+qiyniZajX7z008NTUZ4pYQNxZK bgWedDMtdDueoo7arB5OMebrg4+7tLDavkHqvvTi89lmUzJ3XcwFb4VYAAUCgFUkicUb2m GlkmfunpdRBy+EYwI+SrgJJ3hYYgKtg= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1728316587; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=rqmLsBGUk5w/HgozBxopWOIPzZq6g4JhiJN5kC0eNfjL2tuO+QMJeMggkNhqsRNU2OQbjC MAcnAIvku8SPW+Qcx+EpQFe1FetwhiKCWuMhjxi1KOYyoCU5dFcBd5ZoDrVXWKO8e79aU+ sWXX5cMyAqe+9hcRzEptzX8lGtVPwzk= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of christian.loehle@arm.com designates 217.140.110.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=christian.loehle@arm.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37EE9DA7; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 08:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.26.21] (unknown [10.1.26.21]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6C6BD3F64C; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 08:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <01c3073b-84d0-4986-b6d5-a8877ae8a046@arm.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 16:58:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [cpuidle] 38f83090f5: fsmark.app_overhead 51.9% regression To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , kernel test robot Cc: oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com, Linux Memory Management List , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com References: <202410072214.11d18a3c-oliver.sang@intel.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Christian Loehle In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Stat-Signature: uh4zqogfjodgwwjmeg435b6n8trndmgn X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 84BC21C0008 X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam08 X-HE-Tag: 1728316721-19446 X-HE-Meta: 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 E0Un8olV xFDZQpIeI5HOx72A2F7EWugrLZDz9SrmkcplqFM8fbglItY45ZgYHVZiJbuWPi6fNB/rk8Q1dzERFpJ5PLLHPcrR7KGJqM7cvYgZ5KycMY8NSJeT0H2sDYVoI8/EdKK3yAg5YlSfdTozHHXqCv/aQsC8zp9TabjV9I1BXL+rnENLUmYTVkJsBEZjP5PHvN07akPmj0UGUeTI3M0oqv3KrnHSqfbYbv2fHduEb1ky84iXn8cE= X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 10/7/24 16:18, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Oct 7, 2024 at 4:44 PM kernel test robot wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello, >> >> kernel test robot noticed a 51.9% regression of fsmark.app_overhead on: > > What exactly is fsmark.app_overhead? What does it measure? "App overhead is time in microseconds spent in the test not doing file writing related system calls." So the loop is: /* * MAIN FILE WRITE LOOP: * This loop measures the specific steps in creating files: * Step 1: Make up a file name * Step 2: Creat(file_name); * Step 3: write file data * Step 4: fsync() file data (optional) * Step 5: close() file descriptor */ And it gets the timestamps before and after each syscall. It then subtracts all those times (spent in syscalls) from the total time. I'll go take a look tomorrow, what's interesting is that the exit-latency (which is the thing supposed to cause regressions here) should be time spent blocking on syscalls. If that is all correct that's the part that shouldn't regress on cpuidle.