mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
To: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [mm] 3484b2de949: -56.2% vm-scalability.throughput, +9.3% turbostat.Pkg_W
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 15:29:25 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140819142925.GB10146@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140819043252.GA8798@localhost>

On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 12:32:52PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Hi Mel,
> 
> We noticed the below vm-scalability performance/power regressions on
> commit 3484b2de9499df23c4604a513b36f96326ae81ad ("mm: rearrange zone
> fields into read-only, page alloc, statistics and page reclaim lines").
> 
> 24b7e5819ad5cbe  3484b2de9499df23c4604a513  testbox/testcase/testparams
> ---------------  -------------------------  ---------------------------
>      %stddev        %change               %stddev
>             \          |                 /
>       9.95 ± 2%     +69.1%      16.83 ± 5%  brickland3/vm-scalability/300s-lru-file-mmap-read
>       2.32 ± 6%    +229.4%       7.63 ± 5%  brickland3/vm-scalability/300s-lru-file-readonce
>      12.27 ± 3%     +99.4%      24.46 ± 5%  TOTAL vm-scalability.stddev
> 
> 24b7e5819ad5cbe  3484b2de9499df23c4604a513  
> ---------------  -------------------------  
>   13882598 ± 0%     -35.8%    8915310 ± 1%  brickland3/vm-scalability/300s-lru-file-mmap-read
>   36379953 ± 1%     -64.0%   13093373 ± 0%  brickland3/vm-scalability/300s-lru-file-readonce
>   50262551 ± 0%     -56.2%   22008683 ± 0%  TOTAL vm-scalability.throughput
> 


What units are these? It's completely unclear what is good and bad from the
figures. 300s-lru-file-mmap-read appears multiple times in this report,
each with different numbers beside them but little clue as to what they
mean or what I'm meant to be looking for :(

This is the same patch that was reported as having a performance gain in
another set of tests from lkp so am a little confused.

More importantly, as this patch is primary abougt cache misses it should
be very unlikely that it makes a noticable difference to IO as the
relative cost of a cache miss is so low. Similarly any difference it
makes to reclaim activity is likely to be a coincidence or due to test
variance.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-08-19 14:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-19  4:32 Fengguang Wu
2014-08-19 14:29 ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2014-08-19 15:51   ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-19 17:13     ` Mel Gorman
2014-08-19 17:52       ` Fengguang Wu
2014-08-19 19:18         ` Mel Gorman

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=20140819142925.GB10146@suse.de \
    --to=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    /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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®