Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -2.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
commit: 77e89afc25f30abd56e76a809ee2884d7c1b63ce ("PCI/MSI: Protect msi_desc::masked for multi-MSI")
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
in testcase: will-it-scale
on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz with 256G memory
with following parameters:
nr_task: 100%
mode: process
test: lseek2
cpufreq_governor: performance
ucode: 0xd000280
test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
Details are as below:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
To reproduce:
git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
cd lkp-tests
bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml file for lkp run
bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
=========================================================================================
compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/mode/nr_task/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode:
gcc-9/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/process/100%/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp2/lseek2/will-it-scale/0xd000280
commit:
d28d4ad2a1 ("PCI/MSI: Use msi_mask_irq() in pci_msi_shutdown()")
77e89afc25 ("PCI/MSI: Protect msi_desc::masked for multi-MSI")
d28d4ad2a1aef274 77e89afc25f30abd56e76a809ee
---------------- ---------------------------
%stddev %change %stddev
\ | \
1.073e+09 -2.6% 1.045e+09 will-it-scale.128.processes
8381828 -2.6% 8165037 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
1.073e+09 -2.6% 1.045e+09 will-it-scale.workload
698.88 ?105% -98.8% 8.15 ? 49% perf-sched.wait_time.avg.ms.preempt_schedule_common.__cond_resched.generic_perform_write.__generic_file_write_iter.generic_file_write_iter
1706 ? 34% -42.2% 986.00 ? 24% interrupts.CPU1.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
776.00 ? 3% +41.7% 1099 ? 32% interrupts.CPU122.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
343.00 ? 2% +87.4% 642.83 ? 37% interrupts.CPU122.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
1673 ? 70% -51.8% 807.00 ? 6% interrupts.CPU19.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
514.67 ? 15% -18.1% 421.33 ? 12% interrupts.CPU75.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
392.17 ? 4% +122.0% 870.50 ?112% interrupts.CPU79.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
449.83 -11.2% 399.50 ? 8% interrupts.TLB:TLB_shootdowns
6.742e+10 -2.6% 6.568e+10 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
0.04 ? 6% -0.0 0.03 ? 6% perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
23853919 ? 6% -19.3% 19238556 ? 6% perf-stat.i.branch-misses
0.96 +2.6% 0.99 perf-stat.i.cpi
1.028e+11 -2.6% 1.001e+11 perf-stat.i.dTLB-loads
0.00 -0.0 0.00 perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
475774 -9.0% 433089 perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-misses
6.959e+10 -2.6% 6.779e+10 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores
3.414e+11 -2.6% 3.326e+11 perf-stat.i.instructions
1.04 -2.6% 1.01 perf-stat.i.ipc
1873 -2.6% 1824 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec
0.02 +2.9% 0.02 perf-stat.overall.MPKI
0.04 ? 6% -0.0 0.03 ? 6% perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
0.96 +2.7% 0.99 perf-stat.overall.cpi
0.00 -0.0 0.00 perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
1.04 -2.6% 1.01 perf-stat.overall.ipc
6.719e+10 -2.6% 6.546e+10 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
23787003 ? 6% -19.4% 19181009 ? 6% perf-stat.ps.branch-misses
1.024e+11 -2.6% 9.977e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads
474525 -9.0% 431924 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-store-misses
6.935e+10 -2.6% 6.757e+10 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
3.402e+11 -2.6% 3.315e+11 perf-stat.ps.instructions
1.029e+14 -2.7% 1.001e+14 perf-stat.total.instructions
39.43 -0.9 38.58 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__entry_text_start.llseek
4.11 ? 2% -0.8 3.29 ? 9% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.testcase
2.42 -0.4 2.04 ? 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.lseek@plt
6.07 -0.4 5.69 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_return_via_sysret.llseek
2.66 -0.1 2.58 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
1.52 -0.1 1.46 ? 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_safe_stack.llseek
10.12 +0.2 10.33 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_exit_to_user_mode.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
3.76 +0.3 4.10 ? 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.generic_file_llseek_size.ksys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
4.56 +0.3 4.90 ? 4% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.shmem_file_llseek.ksys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
4.55 +0.4 4.98 ? 4% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_enter_from_user_mode.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
95.78 +0.5 96.27 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.llseek
1.64 ? 11% +0.5 2.14 ? 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.syscall_exit_to_user_mode_prepare.syscall_exit_to_user_mode.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
5.98 +0.7 6.71 ? 3% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__fget_light.__fdget_pos.ksys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
7.87 ? 3% +0.9 8.75 ? 2% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__fdget_pos.ksys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
20.31 +2.2 22.53 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.ksys_lseek.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
46.00 +2.6 48.63 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
38.81 +3.1 41.92 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.llseek
23.00 -1.0 22.02 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.syscall_return_via_sysret
4.63 -0.8 3.86 ? 4% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.testcase
22.32 -0.4 21.94 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__entry_text_start
2.00 -0.3 1.66 ? 3% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.lseek@plt
1.64 -0.1 1.56 ? 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_safe_stack
2.12 -0.1 2.05 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_lseek
3.72 +0.4 4.08 ? 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.generic_file_llseek_size
4.50 +0.4 4.89 ? 4% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.shmem_file_llseek
95.89 +0.6 96.52 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.llseek
5.95 +0.7 6.69 ? 3% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__fget_light
4.57 +0.8 5.39 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.syscall_enter_from_user_mode
8.12 +0.9 8.97 ? 2% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__fdget_pos
20.98 +1.9 22.85 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.ksys_lseek
46.20 +2.5 48.73 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
40.21 +2.7 42.88 perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64
23.00 -1.0 22.02 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.syscall_return_via_sysret
19.08 -0.8 18.31 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.llseek
3.93 ? 2% -0.6 3.30 ? 4% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.testcase
6.54 -0.2 6.35 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
0.78 ? 3% -0.2 0.63 ? 3% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.lseek@plt
1.61 -0.1 1.52 ? 2% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_safe_stack
1.06 -0.1 1.00 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_lseek
3.11 +0.1 3.17 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.syscall_exit_to_user_mode
2.17 +0.2 2.34 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__fdget_pos
3.16 +0.3 3.48 ? 2% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.generic_file_llseek_size
5.74 +0.3 6.07 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.ksys_lseek
3.88 +0.4 4.26 ? 5% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.shmem_file_llseek
5.39 +0.7 6.08 ? 3% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__fget_light
3.84 +0.9 4.70 perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.syscall_enter_from_user_mode
will-it-scale.128.processes
1.09e+09 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
1.085e+09 |-+.+. .+ + +.+. +. .+. .+. .+. .+ |
|.+ + : :+ + + + : +.+.+ + +.+ + : |
1.08e+09 |-+ : : + + + + : : +.|
1.075e+09 |-+ :: + +.+ :.+ : |
| + + + : |
1.07e+09 |-+ +.+ |
1.065e+09 |-+ |
1.06e+09 |-+ |
| |
1.055e+09 |-+ |
1.05e+09 |-+ O O O O O O O O O O |
| O O O O O O O O O O O O |
1.045e+09 |-+ O O |
1.04e+09 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
will-it-scale.per_process_ops
8.5e+06 +----------------------------------------------------------------+
|.+ + : + : +.+ + +..+.+.+ + +.+ + : |
8.45e+06 |-+ : : + : + + + + : |
| :: + + +.+ : +.|
8.4e+06 |-+ + +.+. + |
8.35e+06 |-+ +.+ |
| |
8.3e+06 |-+ |
| |
8.25e+06 |-+ |
8.2e+06 |-+ O O O O O O O O |
| O O O O O O O O O O O O |
8.15e+06 |-+ O O O O |
| O |
8.1e+06 +----------------------------------------------------------------+
will-it-scale.workload
1.09e+09 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
1.085e+09 |-+.+. .+ + +.+. +. .+. .+. .+. .+ |
|.+ + : :+ + + + : +.+.+ + +.+ + : |
1.08e+09 |-+ : : + + + + : : +.|
1.075e+09 |-+ :: + +.+ :.+ : |
| + + + : |
1.07e+09 |-+ +.+ |
1.065e+09 |-+ |
1.06e+09 |-+ |
| |
1.055e+09 |-+ |
1.05e+09 |-+ O O O O O O O O O O |
| O O O O O O O O O O O O |
1.045e+09 |-+ O O |
1.04e+09 +---------------------------------------------------------------+
[*] bisect-good sample
[O] bisect-bad sample
Disclaimer:
Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
design or configuration may affect actual performance.
---
0DAY/LKP+ Test Infrastructure Open Source Technology Center
https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation
Thanks,
Oliver Sang
On Wed, Aug 18 2021 at 22:51, kernel report robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -2.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 77e89afc25f30abd56e76a809ee2884d7c1b63ce ("PCI/MSI: Protect msi_desc::masked for multi-MSI")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
>
> in testcase: will-it-scale
> on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz with 256G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_task: 100%
> mode: process
> test: lseek2
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0xd000280
>
> test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>
> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
There is nothing to fix. The commit cures an incorrectness. Comparing
buggy code to correct code is futile.
Thanks,
tglx
Hi Thomas,
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 12:32:26AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18 2021 at 22:51, kernel report robot wrote:
>
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -2.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 77e89afc25f30abd56e76a809ee2884d7c1b63ce ("PCI/MSI: Protect msi_desc::masked for multi-MSI")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> >
> >
> > in testcase: will-it-scale
> > on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6338 CPU @ 2.00GHz with 256G memory
> > with following parameters:
> >
> > nr_task: 100%
> > mode: process
> > test: lseek2
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > ucode: 0xd000280
> >
> > test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any differences between the two.
> > test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
> >
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > Reported-by: kernel test robot <[email protected]>
>
> There is nothing to fix. The commit cures an incorrectness. Comparing
> buggy code to correct code is futile.
Got it! the change is a functionality fix. Thanks for information.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx