From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753376AbcHQW3G (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:29:06 -0400
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:33146 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752834AbcHQW3E (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 18:29:04 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,535,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="867217086"
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, <lkp@01.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement
References: <20160816142642.GA24206@yexl-desktop>
	<9FF32F53-5EF8-40D4-B696-A30FDF7201E1@zytor.com>
	<20160816171635.GA10542@nazgul.tnic>
	<796A2A72-06B7-4B3D-AA38-DF558FC75857@zytor.com>
	<20160817054605.GA6728@nazgul.tnic>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:29:04 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20160817054605.GA6728@nazgul.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message of
	"Wed, 17 Aug 2016 07:46:05 +0200")
Message-ID: <87r39n58sv.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 04:09:19PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On August 16, 2016 10:16:35 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
>> >On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 09:59:00AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> Dang...
>> >
>> >Isn't 9.3% improvement a good thing(tm) ?
>> 
>> Yes, it's huge.  The only explanation I could imagine is that scrambling %rdi caused the scheduler to do completely the wrong thing.
>
> I'm questioning the validity, actually. Report says test machine was
> Sandy Bridge-EP and I'd bet good money this one has POPCNT support so
> how are we even hitting that __sw_hweight64() path, at all?

We done 8 tests for the base and 4 tests for the head, and the result is
quite stable.

I found there is another change between the two comments,

base:

  "perf-stat.branch-miss-rate": [
    0.3089533646503185,
    0.3099821038600304,
    0.3123762964028104,
    0.311511881793534,
    0.31231973343587144,
    0.3096478429327263,
    0.31166037272389924,
    0.3097364392684626
  ],

first bad commit:

  "perf-stat.branch-miss-rate": [
    0.039853905034485354,
    0.0402472142423231,
    0.04380682345704418,
    0.04319082390667179
  ],

branch-miss-rate decreased from ~0.30% to ~0.043%.

So I guess there are some code alignment change, which caused decreased
branch miss rate.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying