Greeting, FYI, we noticed a -27.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit: commit: e27be240df53f1a20c659168e722b5d9f16cc7f4 ("mm: memcg: make sure memory.events is uptodate when waking pollers") https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master in testcase: will-it-scale on test machine: 72 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v3 @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory with following parameters: nr_task: 100% mode: process test: page_fault3 cpufreq_governor: performance test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two. test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale Details are as below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> ========================================================================================= compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase: gcc-7/performance/x86_64-rhel-7.2/process/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-hsw-ep4/page_fault3/will-it-scale commit: a38c015f31 ("mm/ksm.c: fix inconsistent accounting of zero pages") e27be240df ("mm: memcg: make sure memory.events is uptodate when waking pollers") a38c015f3156895b e27be240df53f1a20c659168e7 ---------------- -------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ 639324 -27.2% 465226 will-it-scale.per_process_ops 46031421 -27.2% 33496351 will-it-scale.workload 17.55 -3.2 14.38 mpstat.cpu.usr% 1130383 ± 6% -19.6% 909067 ± 4% softirqs.RCU 95892 ± 2% -7.5% 88706 ± 3% vmstat.system.in 2714 +2.0% 2768 turbostat.Avg_MHz 0.43 ± 9% -33.3% 0.29 ± 15% turbostat.CPU%c1 15.72 -2.5% 15.33 turbostat.RAMWatt 15220184 -26.9% 11118535 numa-numastat.node0.local_node 15223689 -26.9% 11125573 numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit 15236149 -22.2% 11857182 numa-numastat.node1.local_node 15246716 -22.2% 11864179 numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit 8676822 -22.6% 6714739 numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit 8673095 -22.7% 6707502 numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local 8661159 -19.7% 6951620 numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit 8481025 -20.1% 6775023 numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local 30466411 -24.6% 22979746 proc-vmstat.numa_hit 30452327 -24.6% 22965700 proc-vmstat.numa_local 30512939 -24.6% 23021801 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal 1.386e+10 -27.2% 1.008e+10 proc-vmstat.pgfault 28718588 ± 3% -24.0% 21818568 ± 5% proc-vmstat.pgfree 62.72 ± 10% -21.8% 49.06 ± 2% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.exec_clock.stddev 80883 ± 10% -14.1% 69503 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.stddev 2.04 ± 3% +10.0% 2.24 ± 2% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_spread_over.stddev 119225 ± 11% -58.0% 50132 ± 59% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.avg 199133 ± 7% -35.3% 128853 ± 23% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.max 80591 ± 10% -14.1% 69247 ± 6% sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.spread0.stddev 6.275e+12 -27.3% 4.565e+12 perf-stat.branch-instructions 4.772e+10 ± 2% -26.7% 3.498e+10 perf-stat.branch-misses 55.58 -20.5 35.13 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate% 2.658e+10 -20.4% 2.116e+10 perf-stat.cache-misses 4.782e+10 +26.0% 6.025e+10 perf-stat.cache-references 1.86 +40.3% 2.60 perf-stat.cpi 5.875e+13 +2.0% 5.994e+13 perf-stat.cpu-cycles 8.997e+12 -27.4% 6.532e+12 perf-stat.dTLB-loads 2.94 -0.5 2.48 perf-stat.dTLB-store-miss-rate% 1.599e+11 -38.9% 9.764e+10 perf-stat.dTLB-store-misses 5.27e+12 -27.2% 3.838e+12 perf-stat.dTLB-stores 2.684e+10 -27.3% 1.95e+10 perf-stat.iTLB-load-misses 3.166e+13 -27.3% 2.303e+13 perf-stat.instructions 0.54 -28.7% 0.38 perf-stat.ipc 1.386e+10 -27.2% 1.009e+10 perf-stat.minor-faults 0.57 ± 10% +10.9 11.49 perf-stat.node-load-miss-rate% 67281213 ± 10% +1624.2% 1.16e+09 perf-stat.node-load-misses 1.179e+10 -24.2% 8.934e+09 perf-stat.node-loads 5.02 +0.6 5.64 perf-stat.node-store-miss-rate% 7.36e+08 -15.5% 6.216e+08 perf-stat.node-store-misses 1.393e+10 -25.3% 1.041e+10 perf-stat.node-stores 1.386e+10 -27.2% 1.009e+10 perf-stat.page-faults will-it-scale.per_process_ops 700000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+ |.+ .+.+ +.+ | 650000 +-++ .+.+. .+ + : + | | + .+.+ + +.. : + +.+.+.+..+.+.+.+.+.| | + .+..+ : + + | 600000 +-+ +.+ +.+ +.+ | | | 550000 +-+ | | | 500000 +-+ | O | | O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O | 450000 +-+ O | | O O O | 400000 +-+---O------------------------------------------------------------+ will-it-scale.workload 5e+07 +-+---------------------------------------------------------------+ 4.8e+07 +-+ .+.+ +.+ | | + .+.+.+.+ + : + .+.+.+. .+. .+.+.| 4.6e+07 +-+ +. .+..+ +. : +. +. + + | 4.4e+07 +-+ +. .+.+ +. : +. + | 4.2e+07 +-+ + + + | 4e+07 +-+ | | | 3.8e+07 +-+ | 3.6e+07 +-+ | 3.4e+07 O-O O O O O O O O O O O O O | 3.2e+07 +-+ O O O O O O | | O | 3e+07 +-+ O O O O | 2.8e+07 +-+---------------------------------------------------------------+ [*] bisect-good sample [O] bisect-bad sample Disclaimer: Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Thanks, Xiaolong