From: Anders Roxell <anders.roxell@linaro.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
dvhart@infradead.org, dave@stgolabs.net, andrealmeid@igalia.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Potential Regression in futex Performance from v6.9 to v6.10-rc1 and v6.11-rc4
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2024 14:21:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CADYN=9JBw6kq4E9aA=Pr1rFy-6tY-j-XOthQVYVw6ptmj11=HA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
Hi,
I've noticed that the futex01-thread-* tests in will-it-scale-sys-threads
are running about 2% slower on v6.10-rc1 compared to v6.9, and this
slowdown continues with v6.11-rc4. I am focused on identifying any
performance regressions greater than 2% that occur in automated
testing on arm64 HW.
Using git bisect, I traced the issue to commit
f002882ca369 ("mm: merge folio_is_secretmem() and
folio_fast_pin_allowed() into gup_fast_folio_allowed()").
My tests were performed on m7g.large and m7g.metal instances:
* The slowdown is consistent regardless of the number of threads;
futex1-threads-128 performs similarly to futex1-threads-2, indicating
there is no scalability issue, just a minor performance overhead.
* The test doesn’t involve actual futex operations, just dummy wake/wait
on a variable that isn’t accessed by other threads, so the results might
not be very significant.
Given that this seems to be a minor increase in code path length rather
than a scalability issue, would this be considered a genuine regression?
Cheers,
Anders
next reply other threads:[~2024-09-03 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-03 12:21 Anders Roxell [this message]
2024-09-03 12:37 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-04 10:05 ` Anders Roxell
2024-09-04 13:47 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-09-04 15:51 ` Anders Roxell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CADYN=9JBw6kq4E9aA=Pr1rFy-6tY-j-XOthQVYVw6ptmj11=HA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=anders.roxell@linaro.org \
--cc=andrealmeid@igalia.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dvhart@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox