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 7FD9EC43334 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id AB9FB6B0071; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id A685F6B0072; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:13:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 909BE8E0001; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:13:10 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0014.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.14]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DB756B0071 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:13:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371232111F for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:13:10 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79624358940.02.5CD6EA0 Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115]) by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D3D40025 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 15:13:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1656342789; x=1687878789; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=xJP9OefAMxCTgdzZDCaOuKXFij4QIj41i5jxXMS1AdM=; b=BauoSbJ3ETkqcdRNSvBpphhTywknyuwMgFCEAGeFL2iVa7yxSHTXOgHk iyPQFoouiuuwJ92njXIhoMz0+TMCgVv5cA952Mu4GWsRSz4nRMZK2YbVS cJYUZyG1c/lNoReGCU/OEJvkEeUYivNZTBp88hDiTQ1Dubd2yIm4hQD5k 3Y/A5ml8avXLkAjxjvq9Rl65ZVGZFAuw06NfLsqtLU951Z9j6j3EeDNWb nDYFrO05jhp/RS5eu6GnAnJIBdS1lplRTD7fSfhi+wjqCVDOHRk2cuzVR W5aC9PiNx624QOtjkFFS19ejSD0sAZpixf67kCiqkXN9w24rit7+h7X8Q w==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10390"; a="281509310" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,226,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="281509310" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga103.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2022 08:13:04 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.92,226,1650956400"; d="scan'208";a="766731304" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.146.138]) by orsmga005.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2022 08:12:58 -0700 Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 23:12:58 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Shakeel Butt Cc: Eric Dumazet , 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: <20220627151258.GB20878@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> <20220627123415.GA32052@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1656342789; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=b6WRJQ2W9mvf5g2bvihGsIQ78E+2W4+XVlSqvdQNOn2ISbukh+tM1vR6Q6PKWcPzEhU4Yy ui5Z3kQpLOUcSSRUqXYpGy9Lwqr7gh0HNHKwXVXz5ZWlTGb99ZGvL0JGnyuNfDzDtl9RWO N8b/dUipfz5Yq0z/VhLBgdpkH2pyDPw= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf12.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=BauoSbJ3; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.115) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1656342789; 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=l05IyUbbWaV/whxAFFzGGGuHrpdebegtXXaEJ1+p9yQ=; b=RqWMEDi+++lHC9i5tctNZ3CrVw0wmGdael2o5FFjKoGUOaS9ZO53yrqZOsMOiTAmcUVqdB WvO/1Mghk+1B/vlbb6T0C44IZwxx0lcupaXNRqxp1w2fBq0gRGLeU6VcixIYx5H0YJBut0 yTXFA2CTMy5DlqjLGc0X3GZOVthGoFg= X-Stat-Signature: 45zcpr4z9qgy4tiowghmy71rjb896ojo X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 24D3D40025 Authentication-Results: imf12.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=intel.com header.s=Intel header.b=BauoSbJ3; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=none (imf12.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 192.55.52.115) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com X-HE-Tag: 1656342788-81510 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 07:52:55AM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 5:34 AM Feng Tang wrote: > > 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% > > > > Am I understanding correctly that this 69.4% (or 73.7%) regression is > with cgroup v2? Yes. > Eric did the experiments on v2 but on real hardware where the > performance impact was negligible. > > BTW do you see similar regression for tcp as well or just sctp? Yes, I run TCP_SENDFILE case with 'send_size'==10K, it hits a 70%+ regressioin. Thanks, Feng