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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DAA2C388F2 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21EBC22267 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="iVtmOci5" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 21EBC22267 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 452C06B005D; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:04:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 402306B0062; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:04:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2CBAA6B0068; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:04:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0044.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.44]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F395A6B005D for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:04:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E0E8181AEF07 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:52 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77398220424.21.pipe48_330043a2724d Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin21.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDAC180442C0 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:52 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: pipe48_330043a2724d X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5920 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by imf47.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1603339491; h=from:from: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=Ae2OaQqqHV4++U7pFL5husft7G1mWnlpANfXuyKi6ic=; b=iVtmOci5pWFH+cG+eAmi7Jqsd3sM/HY0iDigQKXD/gCxe9b2u44Q6BZq3VLQO38r8hyIHS LBwEus7Vjsfez0N/4JlGheYGAbOWA8e02Wq0BT2vIwSreFhFWTjpKt4HbmgbFHSzwJNzoO 8NzZG2+K8IV6yGHsELA/APOnuQddQg8= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-218-OMoJQYF3OS2l9Fx0Kh6lrw-1; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 00:04:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OMoJQYF3OS2l9Fx0Kh6lrw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC30686ABCE; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-12-84.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.84]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C036D60C04; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 04:04:42 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 12:04:40 +0800 From: "bhe@redhat.com" To: Rahul Gopakumar Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "akpm@linux-foundation.org" , "natechancellor@gmail.com" , "ndesaulniers@google.com" , "clang-built-linux@googlegroups.com" , "rostedt@goodmis.org" , Rajender M , Yiu Cho Lau , Peter Jonasson , Venkatesh Rajaram Subject: Re: Performance regressions in "boot_time" tests in Linux 5.8 Kernel Message-ID: <20201022040440.GX25604@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> References: <20201010061124.GE25604@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20201013131735.GL25604@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> <20201020151814.GU25604@MiWiFi-R3L-srv> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Hi Rahul, On 10/20/20 at 03:26pm, Rahul Gopakumar wrote: > >> Here, do you mean it even cost more time with the patch applied? >=20 > Yes, we ran it multiple times and it looks like there is a=20 > very minor increase with the patch. >=20 ......=A0 > On 10/20/20 at 01:45pm, Rahul Gopakumar wrote: > > Hi Baoquan, > >=20 > > We had some trouble applying the patch to problem commit and the late= st upstream commit. Steven (CC'ed) helped us by providing the updated dra= ft patch. We applied it on the latest commit (3e4fb4346c781068610d03c12b1= 6c0cfb0fd24a3), and it doesn't look like improving the performance number= s. >=20 > Thanks for your feedback. From the code, I am sure what the problem is, > but I didn't test it on system with huge memory. Forget mentioning my > draft patch is based on akpm/master branch since it's a mm issue, it > might be a little different with linus's mainline kernel, sorry for the > inconvenience. >=20 > I will test and debug this on a server with 4T memory in our lab, and > update if any progress. >=20 > >=20 > > Patch on latest commit - 20.161 secs > > Vanilla latest commit - 19.50 secs >=20 Can you tell how you measure the boot time? I checked the boot logs you attached, E.g in below two logs, I saw patch_dmesg.log even has less time during memmap init. Now I have got a machine with 1T memory for testing, but didn't see obvious time cost increase. At above, you said "Patch on latest commit - 20.161 secs", could you tell where this 20.161 secs comes from, so that I can investigate and reproduce on my system? patch_dmesg.log: [ 0.023126] Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x0000005600000000-0x000000aafff= fffff] [ 0.023128] On node 1 totalpages: 89128960 [ 0.023129] Normal zone: 1392640 pages used for memmap [ 0.023130] Normal zone: 89128960 pages, LIFO batch:63 [ 0.023893] Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x000000ab00000000-0x000001033ff= fffff] [ 0.023895] On node 2 totalpages: 89391104 [ 0.023896] Normal zone: 1445888 pages used for memmap [ 0.023897] Normal zone: 89391104 pages, LIFO batch:63 [ 0.026744] ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x448 [ 0.026747] ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee00000 vanilla_dmesg.log: [ 0.024295] Initmem setup node 1 [mem 0x0000005600000000-0x000000aafff= fffff] [ 0.024298] On node 1 totalpages: 89128960 [ 0.024299] Normal zone: 1392640 pages used for memmap [ 0.024299] Normal zone: 89128960 pages, LIFO batch:63 [ 0.025289] Initmem setup node 2 [mem 0x000000ab00000000-0x000001033ff= fffff] [ 0.025291] On node 2 totalpages: 89391104 [ 0.025292] Normal zone: 1445888 pages used for memmap [ 0.025293] Normal zone: 89391104 pages, LIFO batch:63 [ 2.096982] ACPI: PM-Timer IO Port: 0x448 [ 2.096987] ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee00000