mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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

  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®