From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"lkp@lists.01.org" <lkp@lists.01.org>,
"lkp@intel.com" <lkp@intel.com>,
"ying.huang@intel.com" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
"feng.tang@intel.com" <feng.tang@intel.com>,
"zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com" <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
"fengwei.yin@intel.com" <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [x86/mm/tlb] 6035152d8e: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -13.2% regression
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2022 00:20:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <A185DAD5-3AA7-445B-B57D-AFAF6B55D144@vmware.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dd8be93c-ded6-b962-50d4-96b1c3afb2b7@intel.com>
> On Mar 17, 2022, at 5:16 PM, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/17/22 13:32, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> I’m not married to this patch, but before a revert it would be good
>> to know why it even matters. I wonder whether you can confirm that
>> reverting the patch (without the rest of the series) even helps. If
>> it does, I’ll try to run some tests to understand what the heck is
>> going on.
>
> I went back and tested on a "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8086K CPU @ 4.00GHz"
> which is evidently a 6-core "Coffee Lake". It needs retpolines:
>
>> /sys/devices/system/cpu/vulnerabilities/spectre_v2:Mitigation: Full
> generic retpoline, IBPB: conditional, IBRS_FW, STIBP: conditional, RSB
> filling
>
> I ran the will-it-scale test:
>
> ./malloc1_threads -s 30 -t 12
>
> and took the 30-second average "ops/sec" at the two commits:
>
> 4c1ba3923e:197876
> 6035152d8e:199367 +0.75%
>
> Where bigger is better. So, a small win, but probably mostly in the
> noise. The number of IPIs definitely went up, probably 3-4% to get that
> win.
>
> IPI costs go up the more threads you throw at it. The retpolines do
> too, though because you do *more* of them. Systems with no retpolines
> get hit harder by the IPI costs and have no upsides from removing the
> retpoline.
>
> So, we've got a small (<1%, possibly zero) win on the bulk of systems
> (which have retpolines). Newer, retpoline-free systems see a
> double-digit regression. The bigger the system, the bigger the
> regression (probably).
>
> I tend to think the bigger regression wins and we should probably revert
> the patch, or at least back out its behavior.
>
> Nadav, do you have some different data or a different take?
Thanks for testing.
I don’t have other data right now. Let me run some measurements later
tonight. I understand your explanation, but I still do not see how
much “later” can the lazy check be that it really matters. Just
strange.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-18 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-17 9:04 kernel test robot
2022-03-17 18:38 ` Dave Hansen
2022-03-17 19:02 ` Nadav Amit
2022-03-17 19:11 ` Dave Hansen
2022-03-17 20:32 ` Nadav Amit
2022-03-17 20:49 ` Dave Hansen
2022-03-18 2:56 ` Oliver Sang
2022-03-18 0:16 ` Dave Hansen
2022-03-18 0:20 ` Nadav Amit [this message]
2022-03-18 0:45 ` Dave Hansen
2022-03-18 3:02 ` Nadav Amit
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=A185DAD5-3AA7-445B-B57D-AFAF6B55D144@vmware.com \
--to=namit@vmware.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=luto@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--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®