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 D1821C433EF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:34:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 664376B0071; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 614566B0072; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4DBDB8E0001; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E17A6B0071 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin31.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2114319CF for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:34:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79623958890.31.4D37B65 Received: from mga17.intel.com (mga17.intel.com [192.55.52.151]) by imf17.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C53624001C for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:34:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656333262; x=1687869262; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=3cZhrIXL/31n4yULxyK6MSoWTderF7rYg/64LrImcrE=; b=PKt8YHWs24xAPlmf9av+e9JeTdnauy6llaAZOXl7Bt9K26x7MhzaCLFK hthJOaElx09/fTfkVr32Q0Pxz+1x44LgJvZrc0LQey1H/kvLfpOAHULXF EcQ0d6Ua7wGpdCM8Qu2b8O9MhaE1zha0ZqS0FhlV1cJc0MTEnFNFNzp2m 1f5xjDm8o8YWg1oysKg76AkePjNzfWSPOtz060SeAWwZt3T7jIHwpg1FH 7TC+Z8xhOEcy3hdeeMOM3s794lwxiuuNQjR50oXaEWBHtrz2+IB0yEEA8 TcWlNw0+E1xmJRSZg/4vlAEJQP7cFvWm/Jh6W2YqJkcoJcXO++MHmlNGz Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10390"; a="261852048" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,226,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="261852048" Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29]) by fmsmga107.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2022 05:34:21 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,226,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="679565746" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.138]) by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2022 05:34:16 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:34:15 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Shakeel Butt , Linux MM , Andrew Morton , Roman Gushchin , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Muchun Song , Jakub Kicinski , Xin Long , Marcelo Ricardo Leitner , kernel test robot , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , LKML , network dev , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, MPTCP Upstream , "linux-sctp @ vger . kernel . org" , lkp@lists.01.org, kbuild test robot , Huang Ying , Xing Zhengjun , Yin Fengwei , Ying Xu Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression Message-ID: <20220627123415.GA32052@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20220623185730.25b88096@kernel.org> <20220624070656.GE79500@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220624144358.lqt2ffjdry6p5u4d@google.com> <20220625023642.GA40868@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20220627023812.GA29314@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1656333265; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=JdL+yamNIZKaKUlCP4LbcvcwSQvE/eaUFf8chQcYbuE=; b=olOsYiJQ5s7UjrkdOOrHcwataf+3H1/recSaa1xHeEZNwPMIW/xbWWnIiBczjaLVo0D0Uy p9639xjLoY5IrZG0uHqVxHUPn/O9PPEVg/4i598kB3pNujkqcEhD/PMBdRwyB4v2Ch0cmb kTejWQv1lpGMWZwMZM4Y3EyNWjT/BH4= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=PKt8YHWs; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.151) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1656333265; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=RiP6lSJ6P8wxac4dmLK45OEGXKVqVVPiIrnKf1sXXN/XiyA/HEgOBAtOy+vgSeetQf18tf iKOlOnAQHhAf6I5AfeL3q2yAL9soH8WMPeY2HMuvOEYq0oHs/ngMmb5OX1YaOqiUSmVdb3 Nw4HshLIjbe6ndDuIft15nnS5ljNFfQ= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: C53624001C Authentication-Results: imf17.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=PKt8YHWs; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf17.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.151) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Stat-Signature: yn8er1pr11wc7qrdh7ej6mxr6qt3szsi X-HE-Tag: 1656333262-890846 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: On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:46:21AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 4:38 AM Feng Tang wrote: [snip] > > > > > > > > Thanks Feng. Can you check the value of memory.kmem.tcp.max_usage_in_bytes > > > > in /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/system.slice/lkp-bootstrap.service after making > > > > sure that the netperf test has already run? > > > > > > memory.kmem.tcp.max_usage_in_bytes:0 > > > > Sorry, I made a mistake that in the original report from Oliver, it > > was 'cgroup v2' with a 'debian-11.1' rootfs. > > > > When you asked about cgroup info, I tried the job on another tbox, and > > the original 'job.yaml' didn't work, so I kept the 'netperf' test > > parameters and started a new job which somehow run with a 'debian-10.4' > > rootfs and acutally run with cgroup v1. > > > > And as you mentioned cgroup version does make a big difference, that > > with v1, the regression is reduced to 1% ~ 5% on different generations > > of test platforms. Eric mentioned they also got regression report, > > but much smaller one, maybe it's due to the cgroup version? > > This was using the current net-next tree. > Used recipe was something like: > > Make sure cgroup2 is mounted or mount it by mount -t cgroup2 none $MOUNT_POINT. > Enable memory controller by echo +memory > $MOUNT_POINT/cgroup.subtree_control. > Create a cgroup by mkdir $MOUNT_POINT/job. > Jump into that cgroup by echo $$ > $MOUNT_POINT/job/cgroup.procs. > > > > The regression was smaller than 1%, so considered noise compared to > the benefits of the bug fix. Yes, 1% is just around noise level for a microbenchmark. I went check the original test data of Oliver's report, the tests was run 6 rounds and the performance data is pretty stable (0Day's report will show any std deviation bigger than 2%) The test platform is a 4 sockets 72C/144T machine, and I run the same job (nr_tasks = 25% * nr_cpus) on one CascadeLake AP (4 nodes) and one Icelake 2 sockets platform, and saw 75% and 53% regresson on them. In the first email, there is a file named 'reproduce', it shows the basic test process: " use 'performane' cpufre governor for all CPUs netserver -4 -D modprobe sctp netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K & netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K & netperf -4 -H 127.0.0.1 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K & (repeat 36 times in total) ... " Which starts 36 (25% of nr_cpus) netperf clients. And the clients number also matters, I tried to increase the client number from 36 to 72(50%), and the regression is changed from 69.4% to 73.7% Thanks, Feng > > > > Thanks, > > Feng