From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
lkp@01.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2% regression
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 13:34:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <371c1f25-bc00-c36a-a7f5-fbe05cd58abc@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47965feb-3a4d-4e07-a9ed-86a3d58fb911@intel.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4848 bytes --]
On 08/17/2016 01:04 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
> On 08/16/2016 05:56 PM, Xin Long wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm testing on Linus' master, can we all use that please?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [git] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git
>>>>
>>>> [mechine]
>>>> Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
>>>> mem 62G (66000220K)
>>>>
>>>> [system]
>>>> # cat /etc/redhat-release
>>>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 7.3 Beta (Maipo)
>>>>
>>>> [commit 3684b03]
>>>> [root@hp-dl380pg8-11 lxin]# uname -r
>>>> 4.8.0-rc2.3684b03
>>>> [root@hp-dl380pg8-11 lxin]# cat test.sh
>>>> killall -0 netserver || netserver -4 &
>>>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
>>>
>>> I just realized the test we are doing is not exactly the same.
>>> As the original report says:
>>> ip: ipv4
>>> runtime: 300s
>>> nr_threads: 200%
>>> cluster: cs-localhost
>>> send_size: 10K
>>> test: SCTP_STREAM_MANY
>>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>
>>> Note the nr_threads: 200%, which means to start 2 times of CPU number
>>> processes of netperf.
>>>
>>> In our IVB i3(2 cores, 2 threads per core) case, 8 netperf processes
>>> are started concurrently:
>> OK, understand.
>>
>>>
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>> 2016-07-27 03:48:09 netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1 &
>>>
>>> The throughput is the average of those runs.
>>>
>>> And I think we should be doing test on:
>>> commit a6c2f79287 ("sctp: implement prsctp TTL policy") (the bisected one)
>>> and
>>> commit 826d253d57 ("sctp: add SCTP_PR_ASSOC_STATUS on sctp sockopt") (its immediate parent)
>>> instead of Linus' master HEAD to avoid other factors.
>>>
>> OK, I will do tests as your suggestion now, but need to rebuild again :D
>>
>> can you disable pr_enable with "sysctl -w net.sctp.prsctp_enable=0",
>> then try again?
>
> For commit a6c2f79287 ("sctp: implement prsctp TTL policy"), no matter
> the value of net.sctp.prsctp_enable, the throughput is almost the same:
The perf-profile data for the two commits are attached(for the case of
prsctp_enable=1, the perf-profile data doesn't get collected for the 0
case for some reason, I'm checking the problem now).
The CPU gets much more idle time in the bisected commit a6c2f79287:
68.89% 0.70% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
49.32% 0.12% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sys_sendmsg
49.17% 0.12% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __sys_sendmsg
48.58% 0.22% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ___sys_sendmsg
46.69% 0.06% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sock_sendmsg
46.31% 0.16% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] inet_sendmsg
45.90% 0.98% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_sendmsg
29.66% 0.45% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_do_sm
29.54% 0.23% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] cpu_startup_entry
28.81% 0.68% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_cmd_interpreter.isra.24
26.20% 0.00% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] start_secondary
23.04% 0.09% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_inq_push
23.03% 0.08% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] call_cpuidle
22.94% 0.00% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] cpuidle_enter
22.60% 0.18% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] cpuidle_enter_state
21.99% 21.99% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] intel_idle
... ...
While its immediate parent commit 826d253d57 is mostly busy working:
98.53% 0.83% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath
78.13% 0.12% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sys_sendmsg
78.03% 0.16% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] __sys_sendmsg
77.08% 0.28% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] ___sys_sendmsg
74.44% 0.08% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sock_sendmsg
73.82% 0.13% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] inet_sendmsg
73.34% 1.44% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_sendmsg
47.52% 0.75% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_do_sm
46.19% 0.90% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_cmd_interpreter.isra.24
37.17% 1.43% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_outq_flush
36.93% 0.08% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_outq_uncork
34.24% 0.15% [kernel.kallsyms] [k] sctp_inq_push
... ...
No idle related function above 1%.
Will the bisected commit make the idle possible?
Thanks,
Aaron
[-- Attachment #2: perf-profile-a6c2f79287.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 10561 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #3: perf-profile-826d253d57.gz --]
[-- Type: application/gzip, Size: 10231 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-17 5:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-27 1:54 kernel test robot
2016-07-28 7:01 ` Xin Long
2016-08-05 3:31 ` [LKP] " Aaron Lu
2016-08-05 11:53 ` Xin Long
2016-08-08 2:10 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 2:38 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-16 8:30 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 8:51 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 9:56 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:04 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 5:34 ` Aaron Lu [this message]
2016-08-17 5:41 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 6:14 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:37 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 6:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:35 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 7:42 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 7:53 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:02 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 8:48 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 8:58 ` Xin Long
2016-08-17 9:20 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-17 18:06 ` Xin Long
2016-08-18 3:21 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-18 12:45 ` Xin Long
2016-08-19 5:29 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-19 7:19 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-19 7:24 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-22 21:44 ` Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
2016-08-23 9:19 ` Aaron Lu
2016-09-30 7:05 ` Aaron Lu
2016-10-03 2:32 ` Xin Long
2016-10-09 7:41 ` Aaron Lu
2016-08-16 18:34 ` Xin Long
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=371c1f25-bc00-c36a-a7f5-fbe05cd58abc@intel.com \
--to=aaron.lu@intel.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=lucien.xin@gmail.com \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=xiaolong.ye@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®