From: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>,
oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] [timers] 7ee9887703: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -1.2% regression
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 00:57:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZfDr6qOaMVnyoB8W@pavilion.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <202403011511.24defbbd-oliver.sang@intel.com>
Le Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 04:09:24PM +0800, kernel test robot a écrit :
>
>
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed a -1.2% regression of netperf.Throughput_Mbps on:
>
>
> commit: 7ee988770326fca440472200c3eb58935fe712f6 ("timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git timers/core
>
> testcase: netperf
> test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz (Ice Lake) with 256G memory
> parameters:
>
> ip: ipv4
> runtime: 300s
> nr_threads: 200%
> cluster: cs-localhost
> test: SCTP_STREAM
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
>
>
>
> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202403011511.24defbbd-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> The kernel config and materials to reproduce are available at:
> https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240301/202403011511.24defbbd-oliver.sang@intel.com
>
> =========================================================================================
> cluster/compiler/cpufreq_governor/ip/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/runtime/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> cs-localhost/gcc-12/performance/ipv4/x86_64-rhel-8.3/200%/debian-12-x86_64-20240206.cgz/300s/lkp-icl-2sp2/SCTP_STREAM/netperf
>
> commit:
> 57e95a5c41 ("timers: Introduce function to check timer base is_idle flag")
> 7ee9887703 ("timers: Implement the hierarchical pull model")
So I can reproduce. And after hours staring at traces I haven't really found
the real cause of this. 1% difference is not always easy to track down.
But here are some sort of conclusion so far:
_ There is an increase of ksoftirqd use (+13%) but if I boot with threadirqs
before and after the patch (which means that ksoftirqd is used all the time
for softirq handling) I still see the performance regression. So this
shouldn't play a role here.
_ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues of timers on behalf of
idle CPUs would delay NET_RX softirqs but it doesn't seem to be the case. I
don't see TIMER vector delaying NET_RX vector after the hierarchical pull
model, quite the opposite actually, they are less delayed overall.
_ I suspected that timer migrators handling big queues would add scheduling
latency. But it doesn't seem to be the case. Quite the opposite again,
surprisingly.
_ I have observed that, in average, timers execute later with the hierarchical
pull model. The following delta:
time of callback execution - bucket_expiry
is 3 times higher with the hierarchical pull model. Whether that plays a role
is unclear. It might still be interesting to investigate.
_ The initial perf profile seem to suggest a big increase of task migration. Is
it the result of ping-pong wakeup? Does that play a role?
Thanks.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-12 23:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-01 8:09 kernel test robot
2024-03-04 0:32 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-04 2:13 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-04 11:28 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 2:17 ` Oliver Sang
2024-03-05 10:46 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:21 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-05 11:35 ` Frederic Weisbecker
2024-03-12 23:57 ` Frederic Weisbecker [this message]
2024-03-13 8:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=ZfDr6qOaMVnyoB8W@pavilion.home \
--to=frederic@kernel.org \
--cc=anna-maria@linutronix.de \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=fengwei.yin@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=ying.huang@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®