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 7E1DBC43334 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:25:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id E32EC8E0002; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id DE2B58E0001; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:25:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id CAAD28E0002; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:25:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE25B8E0001 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 12:25:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96C7732EB1 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:25:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79624541304.16.8FB0410 Received: from mail-yw1-f174.google.com (mail-yw1-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174]) by imf18.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2DA1C0028 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 16:25:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw1-f174.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2ef5380669cso90782597b3.9 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=iAKbjN/cfvJPKH/ugt3ybbCNo8kM3ZVPMiqHDruEifg=; b=RbOhXfsOqEDMRENO38mrpSrXxxDYigIIL0iGHtE8xCdU+DUoAXKdt3N63SVhhS9bj+ vE2UFnU2Zf22D0Ic4nq6JinMhf0Rjku6ueYypwbmUvx4P4JuaSisipOX5K8x7shK1He1 Sk/Gw+rOyqohify/KsKnjlLAviBaC9Vo8OtebbrJ5fNeCpt6gqGuma5db02XQdqbiN/9 1Ag08g5+15n3bnIIqqmQnHSAO7DPvRcyWTP8d5sJSPb1SSC2xw97478ugS1gXgiYTaO6 gI/ywCGguebiSzo0OFIw5YW2u7W3NCNfDYEl+SNNPS0N8N6VKJwV+q1Cupj+aXeASM/M Lang== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=iAKbjN/cfvJPKH/ugt3ybbCNo8kM3ZVPMiqHDruEifg=; b=3gW8c+BiI+7pTF6+FB9/FWHtfLY6WWAZLmppdaAxqdsxTVMO+oP344kiSO+CSB+jd2 wnwaVUqAybcUrkLgf8ws/Dz1Aekq/HtOFDzRxNx2MTSPOnoJYni0w4VutP29V4VHUL0b MrMuBebbOXb9cSt2bJjMgapZvaWqvvqjNnDJ5wzyopBGZr98lfyVoLUc43ylwdHfwh5h fHVl8cLBca1cBDaGM+QWfmYPWgFcYgTS3wUo4b8xe0Kc3Sicu87wVyKKYrTqoxCiWMHN gQ5iDnnskGo5k7FDIujT+siL+ZwhFeUBVInf89cCk9KqLNi2QSdvYnl0hS/958YJQI5w uH2A== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8bEqQr0r+H7UwU5P2exwJAORKuljJBUSpzxbLqBkEQ5GFRsFGn M7tsjuglU2OSLBtx/2wiGbOVX8rojVoRfd6A4KrISw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vH55ursM9GjUkBbRtmBX4QDoHDlEEpNJpUs5A6vX12LOpEiXhq4y8+47q5BzoyFRCpabSxvoZUSxVB0BpYoPY= X-Received: by 2002:a81:bd51:0:b0:31b:db72:88a1 with SMTP id n17-20020a81bd51000000b0031bdb7288a1mr3087923ywk.208.1656347131154; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:25:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <20220627151258.GB20878@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20220627151258.GB20878@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> From: Shakeel Butt Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 09:25:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [net] 4890b686f4: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -69.4% regression To: Feng Tang 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1656347132; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=K2g4fdnV+5lz+3QvCtk3WLKzwnrXbckSZgVoTY908laAe5/QTMt4+/3nru0FO4QstrE5h+ 6RmLQmBEaFoAvcrgFgurzjt459PCDE3tG1a4A4NqjmKyVF5ax8bnPKimaXckFuhCYl5uMW 2GJQdnmTgi73Svwvpncgl0SrNt+FyKI= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1656347132; 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=iAKbjN/cfvJPKH/ugt3ybbCNo8kM3ZVPMiqHDruEifg=; b=J8lxFpAx22JPtK5JfVUBTcLvRz7rMGVQZYSRcdjCe/kx+JZzInWh7xrRElFcxIrcE64Hoi H+nAE3CjJXf75J87LSFqvEKzYRl+YlZYngiwk8kj1qX/RjW4gdnvj2lPb+PehA8NOcjVsg sgOYeh2E/9KVsu5ka9lM+w9tlBES4IM= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=RbOhXfsO; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.128.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com X-Stat-Signature: 84hpunkprt5jtpo5an3ttpmmbpzz1cut X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 0A2DA1C0028 Authentication-Results: imf18.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=RbOhXfsO; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com; spf=pass (imf18.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.128.174 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-HE-Tag: 1656347131-585081 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 8:25 AM Feng Tang wrote: > > 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. I think we should start with squeezing whatever we can from layout changes and then try other approaches like increasing batch size or something else. I can take a stab at this next week. thanks, Shakeel