FYI, we noticed the below changes on
commit 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80651297eccbf6d42 ("net: Performance fix for process_backlog")
test case: lkp-t410/netperf/300s-200%-10K-SCTP_STREAM_MANY
68b7107b62983f2 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80
--------------- -------------------------
1023 ~ 3% +27.3% 1302 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_Mbps
0.72 ~10% -91.4% 0.06 ~23% TOTAL turbostat.%c3
13385 ~12% -92.6% 987 ~12% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
22745 ~10% -95.5% 1016 ~40% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
42675736 ~12% -84.6% 6571705 ~19% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.time
88342 ~11% -82.1% 15811 ~ 9% TOTAL softirqs.SCHED
19148006 ~12% -95.7% 821873 ~27% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.time
439.94 ~10% -77.5% 99.05 ~ 5% TOTAL uptime.idle
1.35 ~ 6% -65.8% 0.46 ~24% TOTAL turbostat.%c6
4 ~23% +114.3% 9 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.procs.r
1680 ~ 3% +40.4% 2359 ~ 3% TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_alloc_batch
447921 ~ 4% +36.2% 610047 ~ 0% TOTAL softirqs.TIMER
9.09 ~ 9% +27.6% 11.60 ~ 8% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.memcpy.sctp_outq_flush.sctp_outq_uncork.sctp_cmd_interpreter.sctp_do_sm
2350916 ~ 4% +35.4% 3184088 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma
7.82 ~ 9% +24.1% 9.71 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.copy_user_generic_string.sctp_user_addto_chunk.sctp_datamsg_from_user.sctp_sendmsg.inet_sendmsg
38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_local
38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hit
50216 ~ 1% +17.0% 58745 ~ 6% TOTAL softirqs.RCU
1.41 ~ 4% +11.6% 1.58 ~ 1% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.get_page_from_freelist.__alloc_pages_nodemask.alloc_kmem_pages_node.kmalloc_large_node.__kmalloc_node_track_caller
48539 ~ 1% -25.5% 36171 ~ 1% TOTAL vmstat.system.cs
75.64 ~ 4% +30.6% 98.82 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.%c0
3949 ~ 2% +13.4% 4478 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.system.in
Legend:
~XX% - stddev percent
[+-]XX% - change percent
vmstat.system.cs
52000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
50000 ++ * .* *. ** *. * *. |
| .* + *.** *. : **.* .* .**.**. * + + *.* * + : * .**. *. .**
48000 ** * * * * * * * .* * * * ** |
46000 ++ * |
| |
44000 ++ |
42000 ++ |
40000 ++ |
| |
38000 +O O O |
36000 O+ O O O O OO OO OO O O O O O OO O OO O |
| O O O O O O O |
34000 ++ O O O O |
32000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
[*] 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.
Thanks,
Aaron
Are you pointing out a regressions in this?
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Aaron Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>
> commit 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80651297eccbf6d42 ("net: Performance fix for process_backlog")
>
> test case: lkp-t410/netperf/300s-200%-10K-SCTP_STREAM_MANY
>
> 68b7107b62983f2 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80
> --------------- -------------------------
> 1023 ~ 3% +27.3% 1302 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_Mbps
> 0.72 ~10% -91.4% 0.06 ~23% TOTAL turbostat.%c3
> 13385 ~12% -92.6% 987 ~12% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
> 22745 ~10% -95.5% 1016 ~40% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
> 42675736 ~12% -84.6% 6571705 ~19% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.time
> 88342 ~11% -82.1% 15811 ~ 9% TOTAL softirqs.SCHED
> 19148006 ~12% -95.7% 821873 ~27% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.time
> 439.94 ~10% -77.5% 99.05 ~ 5% TOTAL uptime.idle
> 1.35 ~ 6% -65.8% 0.46 ~24% TOTAL turbostat.%c6
> 4 ~23% +114.3% 9 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.procs.r
> 1680 ~ 3% +40.4% 2359 ~ 3% TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_alloc_batch
> 447921 ~ 4% +36.2% 610047 ~ 0% TOTAL softirqs.TIMER
> 9.09 ~ 9% +27.6% 11.60 ~ 8% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.memcpy.sctp_outq_flush.sctp_outq_uncork.sctp_cmd_interpreter.sctp_do_sm
> 2350916 ~ 4% +35.4% 3184088 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma
> 7.82 ~ 9% +24.1% 9.71 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.copy_user_generic_string.sctp_user_addto_chunk.sctp_datamsg_from_user.sctp_sendmsg.inet_sendmsg
> 38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_local
> 38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> 50216 ~ 1% +17.0% 58745 ~ 6% TOTAL softirqs.RCU
> 1.41 ~ 4% +11.6% 1.58 ~ 1% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.get_page_from_freelist.__alloc_pages_nodemask.alloc_kmem_pages_node.kmalloc_large_node.__kmalloc_node_track_caller
> 48539 ~ 1% -25.5% 36171 ~ 1% TOTAL vmstat.system.cs
> 75.64 ~ 4% +30.6% 98.82 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.%c0
> 3949 ~ 2% +13.4% 4478 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.system.in
>
> Legend:
> ~XX% - stddev percent
> [+-]XX% - change percent
>
>
> vmstat.system.cs
>
> 52000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 50000 ++ * .* *. ** *. * *. |
> | .* + *.** *. : **.* .* .**.**. * + + *.* * + : * .**. *. .**
> 48000 ** * * * * * * * .* * * * ** |
> 46000 ++ * |
> | |
> 44000 ++ |
> 42000 ++ |
> 40000 ++ |
> | |
> 38000 +O O O |
> 36000 O+ O O O O OO OO OO O O O O O OO O OO O |
> | O O O O O O O |
> 34000 ++ O O O O |
> 32000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> [*] 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
On 07/25/2014 02:37 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Are you pointing out a regressions in this?
No, the report is an indication your commit makes the Throughput_Mbps of
the netperf benchamrk increased 27.3%, a good thing I think.
Thanks,
Aaron
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:31 PM, Aaron Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> commit 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80651297eccbf6d42 ("net: Performance fix for process_backlog")
>>
>> test case: lkp-t410/netperf/300s-200%-10K-SCTP_STREAM_MANY
>>
>> 68b7107b62983f2 11ef7a8996d5d433c9cd75d80
>> --------------- -------------------------
>> 1023 ~ 3% +27.3% 1302 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_Mbps
>> 0.72 ~10% -91.4% 0.06 ~23% TOTAL turbostat.%c3
>> 13385 ~12% -92.6% 987 ~12% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage
>> 22745 ~10% -95.5% 1016 ~40% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage
>> 42675736 ~12% -84.6% 6571705 ~19% TOTAL cpuidle.C6-NHM.time
>> 88342 ~11% -82.1% 15811 ~ 9% TOTAL softirqs.SCHED
>> 19148006 ~12% -95.7% 821873 ~27% TOTAL cpuidle.C3-NHM.time
>> 439.94 ~10% -77.5% 99.05 ~ 5% TOTAL uptime.idle
>> 1.35 ~ 6% -65.8% 0.46 ~24% TOTAL turbostat.%c6
>> 4 ~23% +114.3% 9 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.procs.r
>> 1680 ~ 3% +40.4% 2359 ~ 3% TOTAL proc-vmstat.nr_alloc_batch
>> 447921 ~ 4% +36.2% 610047 ~ 0% TOTAL softirqs.TIMER
>> 9.09 ~ 9% +27.6% 11.60 ~ 8% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.memcpy.sctp_outq_flush.sctp_outq_uncork.sctp_cmd_interpreter.sctp_do_sm
>> 2350916 ~ 4% +35.4% 3184088 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma
>> 7.82 ~ 9% +24.1% 9.71 ~ 4% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.copy_user_generic_string.sctp_user_addto_chunk.sctp_datamsg_from_user.sctp_sendmsg.inet_sendmsg
>> 38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_local
>> 38837537 ~ 3% +27.1% 49358639 ~ 0% TOTAL proc-vmstat.numa_hit
>> 50216 ~ 1% +17.0% 58745 ~ 6% TOTAL softirqs.RCU
>> 1.41 ~ 4% +11.6% 1.58 ~ 1% TOTAL perf-profile.cpu-cycles.get_page_from_freelist.__alloc_pages_nodemask.alloc_kmem_pages_node.kmalloc_large_node.__kmalloc_node_track_caller
>> 48539 ~ 1% -25.5% 36171 ~ 1% TOTAL vmstat.system.cs
>> 75.64 ~ 4% +30.6% 98.82 ~ 0% TOTAL turbostat.%c0
>> 3949 ~ 2% +13.4% 4478 ~ 0% TOTAL vmstat.system.in
>>
>> Legend:
>> ~XX% - stddev percent
>> [+-]XX% - change percent
>>
>>
>> vmstat.system.cs
>>
>> 52000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>> 50000 ++ * .* *. ** *. * *. |
>> | .* + *.** *. : **.* .* .**.**. * + + *.* * + : * .**. *. .**
>> 48000 ** * * * * * * * .* * * * ** |
>> 46000 ++ * |
>> | |
>> 44000 ++ |
>> 42000 ++ |
>> 40000 ++ |
>> | |
>> 38000 +O O O |
>> 36000 O+ O O O O OO OO OO O O O O O OO O OO O |
>> | O O O O O O O |
>> 34000 ++ O O O O |
>> 32000 ++------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>> [*] 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.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:37:07 -0700
> Are you pointing out a regressions in this?
I think he's letting you know that performance has improved, in fact :)
On 07/25/2014 02:48 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:37:07 -0700
>
>> Are you pointing out a regressions in this?
>
> I think he's letting you know that performance has improved, in fact :)
Yes, exactly :-)
-Aaron
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 11:49 PM, Aaron Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/25/2014 02:48 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Tom Herbert <[email protected]>
>> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 23:37:07 -0700
>>
>>> Are you pointing out a regressions in this?
>>
>> I think he's letting you know that performance has improved, in fact :)
>
> Yes, exactly :-)
>
Very nice, thanks for posting the results!
> -Aaron
>