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 D0909CFB454 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 19:07:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 638D56B0089; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5E7D86B008C; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4FE756B0092; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32E766B0089 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 15:07:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3206140E37 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 19:07:20 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82647739440.02.2FB62DB Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by imf19.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D54E1A0013 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 19:07:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf19.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=1728327995; 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=r2AevtnEtbJfSDPmPcFOIFY3SOucJehnERZkHhnNEVU=; b=Ly0wQZwvvbxGdnYIi2yalfgaHxfz+dFTTYpGtqTsCW07SzkvFQ8PvDU/YGOA/uhZlJmMCq 3U97xob9/7+tZKJ+Oi9Jwk6TVqcAWrSC5b2pCxdVo8qiv+A90CtKoKMgMDSPVDRy2nn9hw YaWTpUImWAp78xP2zv7uKTbM3Oxnsis= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf19.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; spf=pass (imf19.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-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1728327995; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=nVIjBwU3Och/GSWRffkMtarCOaEYOghYCBjgdY9odNtQ3oTw9UwFeG75u0Noq14nkC0hFb 3YHdi0v8VArjYgoH01TW6nGeK9SIOTfx9pc+Tl5cPDQtVO+zrXXjDrp6AH4zKpTeTS4wHf Ym6BejFW+r40Je7StaHwirIS1ScudnM= 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 A9E37DA7; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:07:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.57.20.159] (unknown [10.57.20.159]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF8503F73F; Mon, 7 Oct 2024 12:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <733de7f6-922c-460a-b4f6-57633122eac6@arm.com> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2024 20:07:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [cpuidle] 38f83090f5: fsmark.app_overhead 51.9% regression To: 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: <202410072214.11d18a3c-oliver.sang@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: yn7g9hpfhgrngyccs6h8tbe98utk7566 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 2D54E1A0013 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-HE-Tag: 1728328037-154172 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1/zRhgXscqXsgNSCAQx41ko2SBnb83tfaw236cjFkex9lcR4f6mQIVQU8ywtUIQO4CL78eqNQrg+yqRiJeqNWQ/PXfB35u+vwBp8dg6LqqvuGSMBiy3qOkSiKFf+bE5TcSle1anasMjVsl3CfyURxYRQHfT0yFlvtlBihIyiV9TubVJQNCdYtVlt6DCqEwhU2uNa7F+AV/Pkzp+tqb6Oiv3vUo98hI0gILnwL8End4sl+g1+vYj5l5sGHGFQL5ZOU1boEDY3KF2yIK6Fp8KNQKtY61y1yd89zCJgntbY4lF7DhTLEy6MBgFmBDhOXTLl4u+jP0VLhtahlQEKkZQ1BKEzM5eODG8GlkSmHNWTsc8epTrdwPyaW9LB6e1bsLPBifaZmzzQc151rTg4O8jmrt6SoaplOHaLoE/syX10+q1wQ6NsTskeTh0Q+H9k6cpp79AOTSYur9dXXPRNQLf3qHrAjM/OcCJGaGoRMf3Q/PX+BcSjIwDy4RxjZwPt4jo3jTzGrwL+cwEg2OlQVIPXHjmYS9ZWSrpw+r3AghFeJIUnXimI4HKuhppj+pUB0zt1ElVaE40folAC9zSuHjlgVwufc2sH26aGTakqP1sl+IlJud0zRfTufC7vUaM19fW/ojvL/Tlw+27U6W8zrt0GMghUirfHXWCshE/FKwkJm18jalr53fsx9IVcgkSbek3Vo6jespXol80gxxq0xP6VsoC6xrXcXeG2mcRcXvT6EXX2B143WAczqeVUoWpYc2/m74BSpUFmOlCIOSzEkIY2uw08vmM8UFhzZMO39nb2bB83sUrDE/OiBc24aEMSbIlkOQrK45Mrpu2neX+4dDP1il5h8XqozHmOq+fW/3T9HQ0cNnNerTwK7vMVTuHzoCfOLGqvIP0FV+dEgO/dWX95OA47GFmNv5HyHU3uM3E6X16xvL1J6RX8InXdN9wydy+YFy4hFmDSXC 2iuk9Zl5 Qv8TGaIjplFQDz19I2ItwD66BQAIkrHALnW0bXkd6rQLBvP3c+SpYLY4b3sJQvd+vTbNXvyzjvMEGsCS/7igWbXjb1iF2BT254mzMkhpA1v8xatbGeBhP5Bv95cxtc4LECGi/T+FC+HW5gu8IrTfhQd0G4Q5yc93qs6v3hRH46CdRfV0G2gpxTYTu0fP+qH1Fw4yQcQ+TAwn95TpRKFghvCqjGeRBZwmtRFtZ/oyfRCHVrW/Va8CGNhJgJ+Vq1B/mviOVKhFMeZoS6YWovx2GUrJS4svXRcEDZGbXg7XhJk5vgL8bgz852fXx0tRgHcMeUNTG 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 15:43, kernel test robot wrote: > > > Hello, > > kernel test robot noticed a 51.9% regression of fsmark.app_overhead on: > > ( > but there is no performance difference for fsmark.files_per_sec > 18.58 -0.2% 18.55 fsmark.files_per_sec > ) > > > commit: 38f83090f515b4b5d59382dfada1e7457f19aa47 ("cpuidle: menu: Remove iowait influence") > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > testcase: fsmark > test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Ice Lake) with 128G memory > parameters: > > iterations: 1x > nr_threads: 1t > disk: 1HDD > fs: btrfs > fs2: nfsv4 > filesize: 4K > test_size: 40M > sync_method: fsyncBeforeClose > nr_files_per_directory: 1fpd > cpufreq_governor: performance > > > > > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags > | Reported-by: kernel test robot > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202410072214.11d18a3c-oliver.sang@intel.com > > > Details are as below: > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > > The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at: > https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20241007/202410072214.11d18a3c-oliver.sang@intel.com > > ========================================================================================= > compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs2/fs/iterations/kconfig/nr_files_per_directory/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase: > gcc-12/performance/1HDD/4K/nfsv4/btrfs/1x/x86_64-rhel-8.3/1fpd/1t/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/fsyncBeforeClose/lkp-icl-2sp6/40M/fsmark > > commit: > v6.12-rc1 > 38f83090f5 ("cpuidle: menu: Remove iowait influence") > > v6.12-rc1 38f83090f515b4b5d59382dfada > ---------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 2032015 ± 3% +51.9% 3087623 fsmark.app_overhead > 18.58 -0.2% 18.55 fsmark.files_per_sec > 2944 -2.9% 2858 vmstat.system.cs > 0.02 +0.0 0.02 mpstat.cpu.all.irq% > 0.01 ± 2% +0.0 0.01 mpstat.cpu.all.soft% > 0.04 ± 2% +0.0 0.05 ± 3% mpstat.cpu.all.sys% > 4.07 ± 18% -53.4% 1.90 ± 53% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.runnable_avg.avg > 267.72 ± 38% -62.7% 99.92 ± 75% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.runnable_avg.max > 30.08 ± 29% -58.5% 12.50 ± 63% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.runnable_avg.stddev > 4.07 ± 18% -53.5% 1.89 ± 53% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.util_avg.avg > 267.67 ± 38% -62.7% 99.92 ± 75% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.util_avg.max > 30.08 ± 29% -58.5% 12.49 ± 63% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.removed.util_avg.stddev > 20.43 ± 17% -25.5% 15.21 ± 16% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est.stddev > 7.85 ± 14% +21.6% 9.55 ± 12% sched_debug.cpu.clock.stddev > 0.00 ± 25% -47.7% 0.00 ± 44% sched_debug.cpu.next_balance.stddev > 0.02 ± 10% -18.9% 0.02 ± 11% sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.avg > 0.14 ± 5% -14.5% 0.12 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.stddev > 5.19 +0.6 5.79 perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate% > 4096977 ± 4% +8.4% 4442600 ± 2% perf-stat.i.branch-misses > 1.79 ± 7% -0.2 1.59 ± 3% perf-stat.i.cache-miss-rate% > 11620307 +22.2% 14202690 perf-stat.i.cache-references > 2925 -3.2% 2830 perf-stat.i.context-switches > 1.68 +38.6% 2.32 perf-stat.i.cpi > 4.457e+08 ± 3% +23.8% 5.518e+08 ± 2% perf-stat.i.cpu-cycles > 1630 ± 8% +28.6% 2096 ± 4% perf-stat.i.cycles-between-cache-misses > 0.63 -25.5% 0.47 perf-stat.i.ipc > 5.26 +0.2 5.48 perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate% > 1.16 +18.4% 1.38 perf-stat.overall.cpi > 0.86 -15.6% 0.73 perf-stat.overall.ipc > 4103944 ± 4% +7.9% 4429579 perf-stat.ps.branch-misses > 11617199 +22.1% 14186503 perf-stat.ps.cache-references > 2919 -3.2% 2825 perf-stat.ps.context-switches > 4.492e+08 ± 3% +23.2% 5.534e+08 ± 2% perf-stat.ps.cpu-cycles The other obvious guess would be increased cache misses due to deeper idle states clearing the cache. The reduced IPC and increased cycles would indicate that, but the cache-misses don't seem to make up for that IMO.