mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>
Cc: Alexey Gladkov <legion@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Fotengauer-Malinovskiy <glebfm@altlinux.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
	feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com,
	fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [ucounts]  59ec71575a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops -10.3% regression
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 10:17:04 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220113021704.GA18396@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874k68pyag.fsf@email.froward.int.ebiederm.org>

Hi Eric,

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 01:08:23PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -10.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> 
> 
> I am having a bit of a challenge reading this report.  Does the -10.3%
> mean that will-it-scale.per_process_ops is performing 70873 operations
> per second instead of 78995 aka -10.3% fewer operations per second?

yes

> 
> The per-profile.self-cycles-pp.do_dec_rlimits_put_ucounts now takes +2.6
> more cycles, and perf-profile.self.cycles.pp.inc_rlimit_get_ucounts now
> takes +3.8 more cycles.
> 
> Which if I read this correctly is a regression report about two
> functions taking 3 or 4 cycles more after the code was rearranged inside
> of them.
> 
> Is that correct?  Is this a regression report saying those two functions
> are taking a few cycles more which leads to
> will-it-scale.per_process_ops not being able to perform as many
> operations per second?

yes

> 
> Given the change in the commit mentioned I think this is all down to a
> bug fix causing the code to be rearranged and a compiler optimizations.
> 
> I don't see much room to do anything about this.

got it. this is a bug fix. Thanks for explanation!

> 
> Eric
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-13  2:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-12 13:42 kernel test robot
2022-01-12 19:08 ` Eric W. Biederman
2022-01-13  2:17   ` Oliver Sang [this message]
2022-01-15  0:07     ` Eric W. Biederman

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=20220113021704.GA18396@xsang-OptiPlex-9020 \
    --to=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
    --cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
    --cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
    --cc=glebfm@altlinux.org \
    --cc=legion@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    --cc=zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com \
    /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®