mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
	oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [tip:sched/eevdf] [sched/fair]  e0c2ff903c: phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final_score -34.8% regression
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2023 14:49:14 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230814124914.GJ776869@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZNWKuccyWnS3UJjK@chenyu5-mobl2.bbrouter>

On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:11:21AM +0800, Chen Yu wrote:
> On 2023-08-10 at 21:24:37 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed a -34.8% regression of phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final_score on:
> > 
> > 
> > commit: e0c2ff903c320d3fd3c2c604dc401b3b7c0a1d13 ("sched/fair: Remove sched_feat(START_DEBIT)")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/eevdf
> > 
> > testcase: phoronix-test-suite
> > test machine: 96 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6252 CPU @ 2.10GHz (Cascade Lake) with 512G memory
> > parameters:
> > 
> > 	test: blogbench-1.1.0
> > 	option_a: Write
> > 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> > 

Is this benchmark fork() heavy?

> It seems that commit e0c2ff903c32 removed the sched_feat(START_DEBIT) for initial
> task, but also increases the vruntime for non-initial task:
> Before the e0c2ff903c32, the vruntime for a enqueued task is:
> cfs_rq->min_vruntime
> After the e0c2ff903c32, the vruntime for a enqueued task is:
> avg_vruntime(cfs_rq) = \Sum v_i * w_i / W
>                      = \Sum v_i / nr_tasks
> which is usually higher than cfs_rq->min_vruntime, and we give less sleep bonus to
> the wakee, which could bring more or less impact to different workloads.
> But since later we switched to lag based placement, this new vruntime will minus
> lag, which could mitigate this problem. 

Right.. but given this problem was bisected through the lag based
placement to this commit, I wondered about fork() / pthread_create().

If this is indeed fork()/pthread_create() heavy, could you please see if
disabling PLACE_DEADLINE_INITIAL helps?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-08-14 12:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-10 13:24 kernel test robot
2023-08-11  1:11 ` Chen Yu
2023-08-11  2:42   ` Chen Yu
2023-08-14 13:29     ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-14 18:32       ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-15 23:52         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-16  3:54           ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-16 12:37         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-16 13:40           ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-16 15:38             ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-16 20:04               ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-17  1:25                 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-17 15:10             ` [tip: sched/core] sched/eevdf: Curb wakeup-preemption tip-bot2 for Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-21 10:39               ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-21 15:30                 ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-22  3:03                   ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-08-22  6:09                     ` Mike Galbraith
2023-08-25  6:41                       ` K Prateek Nayak
2023-09-19  9:02                       ` [PATCH] sched/fair: Do not wakeup-preempt same-prio SCHED_OTHER tasks Ingo Molnar
2023-09-19  9:48                         ` Mike Galbraith
2023-09-22 10:00                         ` kernel test robot
2023-09-25 11:07                           ` Ingo Molnar
2023-09-25 16:45                             ` Chen Yu
2023-08-18  1:09             ` [tip:sched/eevdf] [sched/fair] e0c2ff903c: phoronix-test-suite.blogbench.Write.final_score -34.8% regression Chen Yu
2023-08-22  6:48               ` Chen Yu
2023-08-22  7:07                 ` Chen Yu
2023-08-16  3:40       ` Chen Yu
2023-08-16  9:20         ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-14 12:49   ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-08-18  1:54     ` Chen Yu

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=20230814124914.GJ776869@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
    --to=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@intel.com \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    --cc=yu.c.chen@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®