From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [memcg] 45208c9105: aim7.jobs-per-min -14.0% regression
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:42:46 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YT+ptg1Lf1kGLyUX@slm.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALvZod7Oa7q=P0gzfA3F26bHPrNz+F-d6G9qKpSiHy9g=msM_w@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:40:06PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> I did one more experiment with same workload but with system_wq
> instead system_unbound_wq and there is clear difference in profile:
>
> With system_unbound_wq:
> - 4.63% 0.33% mmap [kernel.kallsyms] [k] queue_work_on
> 4.29% queue_work_on
> - __queue_work
> - 3.45% wake_up_process
> - try_to_wake_up
> - 2.46% ttwu_queue
> - 1.66% ttwu_do_activate
> - 1.14% activate_task
> - 0.97% enqueue_task_fair
> enqueue_entity
>
> With system_wq:
> - 1.36% 0.06% mmap [kernel.kallsyms] [k] queue_work_on
> 1.30% queue_work_on
> - __queue_work
> - 1.03% wake_up_process
> - try_to_wake_up
> - 0.97% ttwu_queue
> 0.66% ttwu_do_activate
>
> Tejun, is this expected? i.e. queuing work on system_wq has a
> different performance impact than on system_unbound_wq?
Yes, system_unbound_wq is putting the work item on the global shared
workqueue while the system_wq is per-cpu, so on a loaded system, overhead
difference showing up isn't too surprising.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-13 19:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20210902215504.dSSfDKJZu%akpm@linux-foundation.org>
2021-09-05 12:44 ` kernel test robot
2021-09-05 22:15 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-07 3:30 ` Feng Tang
2021-09-10 0:43 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-10 1:08 ` Feng Tang
2021-09-10 1:19 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-10 2:34 ` Feng Tang
2021-09-10 4:17 ` Shakeel Butt
[not found] ` <20210912111756.4158-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2021-09-12 13:29 ` Feng Tang
2021-09-13 16:41 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-13 19:40 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-13 19:42 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2021-09-13 20:09 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-13 20:10 ` Tejun Heo
2021-09-13 20:13 ` Shakeel Butt
2021-09-14 2:13 ` Feng Tang
2021-09-14 4:20 ` Shakeel Butt
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=YT+ptg1Lf1kGLyUX@slm.duckdns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shakeelb@google.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®