LinuxLists.cc - [PATCH] fs: Optimized file struct to improve performance

2021-04-09 03:51:28

Subject: [PATCH] fs: Optimized file struct to improve performance

From: Yuqi Jin <[email protected]>

In the syscall process, @f_count and @f_mod are frequently used, if
we put them together with each other and they will share the same
cacheline. It is useful for the performance.

syscall of unixbench is tested on Intel 8180.
before this patch
80 CPUs in system; running 80 parallel copies of tests

System Call Overhead 3789860.2 lps (10.0 s, 1 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
System Call Overhead 15000.0 3789860.2 2526.6
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 2526.6

after this patch
80 CPUs in system; running 80 parallel copies of tests

System Call Overhead 3951328.1 lps (10.0 s, 1 samples)

System Benchmarks Partial Index BASELINE RESULT INDEX
System Call Overhead 15000.0 3951328.1 2634.2
========
System Benchmarks Index Score (Partial Only) 2634.2

Cc: Alexander Viro <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Yuqi Jin <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Shaokun Zhang <[email protected]>
---
include/linux/fs.h | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 3fbb98126248..cfc91d2dd6a7 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -917,7 +917,6 @@ struct file {
struct llist_node fu_llist;
struct rcu_head fu_rcuhead;
} f_u;
- struct path f_path;
struct inode *f_inode; /* cached value */
const struct file_operations *f_op;

@@ -926,13 +925,14 @@ struct file {
* Must not be taken from IRQ context.
*/
spinlock_t f_lock;
- enum rw_hint f_write_hint;
atomic_long_t f_count;
unsigned int f_flags;
fmode_t f_mode;
struct mutex f_pos_lock;
loff_t f_pos;
struct fown_struct f_owner;
+ enum rw_hint f_write_hint;
+ struct path f_path;
const struct cred *f_cred;
struct file_ra_state f_ra;

--
2.7.4

2021-04-20 05:54:13

by kernel test robot

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: [fs] aec499039e: unixbench.score 19.2% improvement

Greeting,

FYI, we noticed a

commit: aec499039e7b21224ef url: in testcase: unixbench
on test machine: 96 with following parameters:

runtime: 300s
nr_task: 30%
test: syscall
cpufreq_governor: performance
ucode: 0x4003006

test-description: test-url: Thanks,
Oliver Sang

19.2% improvement of unixbench.score due to commit:
29e5a2daba328aec14442 ("[PATCH] fs: Optimized file struct to improve performance")
ub.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Shaokun-Zhang/fs-Optimized-file-struct-to-improve-performance/20210409-114859">https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Shaokun-Zhang/fs-Optimized-file-struct-to-improve-performance/20210409-114859
.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git">https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git 5e46d1b78a03d52306f21f77a4e4a144b6d31486
threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system.
/github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench">https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
----------------------------------------------------------------------->
href="https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git">https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
--compatible job.yaml
compatible-job.yaml
==============================================================
config/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode:
rhel-8.3/30%/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/300s/lkp-csl-2sp4/syscall/unixbench/0x4003006
update reiserfs_xattrs_initialized() condition")
Optimized file struct to improve performance")
7b21224ef29e5a2da
-----------------
%stddev
\
3298 unixbench.score
211.43 unixbench.time.user_time
+19.2% 1.933e+09 unixbench.workload
260.57 ? 68% proc-vmstat.nr_mlock
33639 ? 15% turbostat.C1
-76.6% 3.151e+09 ?190% cpuidle.C6.time
184629 ? 2% cpuidle.POLL.time
0.81 ? 3% mpstat.cpu.all.irq%
0.59 mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
0.00 ? 13% perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.rcu_gp_kthread.kthread.ret_from_fork
0.03 ? 42% perf-sched.sch_delay.max.ms.do_task_dead.do_exit.do_group_exit.__x64_sys_exit_group.do_syscall_64
0.02 ? 47% perf-sched.sch_delay.max.ms.schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock.ep_poll.do_epoll_wait.__x64_sys_epoll_wait
502.83 ? 29% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
1316 ? 30% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.max.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
502.82 ? 29% perf-sched.wait_time.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
1316 ? 30% perf-sched.wait_time.max.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
0.71 ?162% interrupts.124:PCI-MSI.31981657-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-88
0.29 ?158% interrupts.61:PCI-MSI.31981594-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-25
1732 ?102% interrupts.CPU27.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
1732 ?102% interrupts.CPU27.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
3497 ? 37% interrupts.CPU3.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
3497 ? 37% interrupts.CPU3.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
4746 ? 24% interrupts.CPU51.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
4746 ? 24% interrupts.CPU51.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
94.71 ? 26% interrupts.CPU59.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
2490 ? 90% interrupts.CPU74.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
2490 ? 90% interrupts.CPU74.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
0.43 ?169% interrupts.CPU88.124:PCI-MSI.31981657-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-88
0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
24.27 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
24.46 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
5.85 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
5.89 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
5.93 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
5.91 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
6.04 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__close
10.68 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.fput_many.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
0.07 ? 12% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush
30.16 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.filp_close
30.36 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close
6.07 ? 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__close
0.56 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.hrtimer_interrupt
0.57 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
0.29 ? 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__hrtimer_run_queues
0.22 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tick_sched_timer
10.69 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.fput_many
0.06 ? 11% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush
10.64 ? 10% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.fput_many
7.51 ? 16% perf-stat.i.MPKI
+16.2% 1.247e+09 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
1.62 ? 2% perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
-31.6% 38588360 ? 21% perf-stat.i.cache-references
10.16 perf-stat.i.cpi
0.02 ?202% perf-stat.i.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
+16.9% 1.965e+09 perf-stat.i.dTLB-loads
0.01 ?142% perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
+17.5% 1.304e+09 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores
+16.2% 6.176e+09 perf-stat.i.instructions
0.12 ? 2% perf-stat.i.ipc
47.51 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec
96.16 perf-stat.i.node-load-miss-rate%
-57.3% 1561506 perf-stat.i.node-load-misses
34031 ? 8% perf-stat.i.node-loads
6.27 ? 23% perf-stat.overall.MPKI
1.61 perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
11.19 perf-stat.overall.cpi
0.00 ?148% perf-stat.overall.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
0.00 ? 69% perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
360.58 perf-stat.overall.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
0.09 perf-stat.overall.ipc
97.87 perf-stat.overall.node-load-miss-rate%
1251 perf-stat.overall.path-length
+16.2% 1.246e+09 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
+16.9% 1.964e+09 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads
+17.6% 1.303e+09 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
+16.3% 6.171e+09 perf-stat.ps.instructions
-57.2% 1560409 perf-stat.ps.node-load-misses
33946 ? 8% perf-stat.ps.node-loads
+16.0% 2.419e+12 perf-stat.total.instructions
8746 ? 8% softirqs.CPU10.RCU
8447 ? 9% softirqs.CPU13.RCU
39975 ? 4% softirqs.CPU30.SCHED
8660 ? 2% softirqs.CPU33.RCU
8500 ? 5% softirqs.CPU38.RCU
8731 ? 7% softirqs.CPU40.RCU
8703 ? 9% softirqs.CPU44.RCU
8471 ? 6% softirqs.CPU45.RCU
8524 ? 6% softirqs.CPU46.RCU
8617 ? 8% softirqs.CPU49.RCU
8750 ? 8% softirqs.CPU50.RCU
9088 ? 10% softirqs.CPU53.RCU
8732 ? 7% softirqs.CPU54.RCU
8912 ? 7% softirqs.CPU55.RCU
8699 ? 5% softirqs.CPU60.RCU
8514 ? 7% softirqs.CPU61.RCU
9008 ? 5% softirqs.CPU67.RCU
9060 ? 5% softirqs.CPU68.RCU
9152 ? 6% softirqs.CPU69.RCU
8715 ? 5% softirqs.CPU74.RCU
8587 ? 5% softirqs.CPU76.RCU
8425 ? 5% softirqs.CPU80.RCU
8407 ? 6% softirqs.CPU82.RCU
8624 ? 4% softirqs.CPU83.RCU
8567 ? 4% softirqs.CPU84.RCU
8485 ? 3% softirqs.CPU85.RCU
33055 ? 6% softirqs.CPU85.SCHED
8623 ? 4% softirqs.CPU86.RCU
8423 ? 4% softirqs.CPU87.RCU
8649 ? 5% softirqs.CPU88.RCU
8502 ? 5% softirqs.CPU89.RCU
8612 ? 4% softirqs.CPU92.RCU
8498 ? 5% softirqs.CPU93.RCU
8625 ? 6% softirqs.CPU94.RCU
8967 ? 7% softirqs.CPU95.RCU
5871 ? 82% softirqs.NET_RX
845954 ? 6% softirqs.RCU

unixbench.score

-------------------------------------------------+
OO OO |
O O |
O |
|
|
|
|
.+ ++. |
+. .++ +.+++.++.++.++.++ :+ +|
+.+ .++.+ + .++ + : + |
+ + |
|
|
-------------------------------------------------+

unixbench.workload

-------------------------------------------------+
O OO OO OOO O |
O O |
O |
|
|
|
|
+ ++. |
.+ ++ +.+++.++.+++.++.+ :+ +|
+.+ .+++ +. +.+ + : + |
+ + |
|
|
-------------------------------------------------+

estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
may affect actual performance.
Open Source Technology Center
org/hyperkitty/list/lkp@lists.01.org">https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected] Intel Corporation

Attachments:

(No filename) (15.18 kB)
config-5.12.0-rc5-00018-gaec499039e7b (175.52 kB)
job-script (8.20 kB)
job.yaml (5.51 kB)
reproduce (290.00 B)
Download all attachments

2021-05-10 12:52:31

by Zhangshaokun

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [fs] aec499039e: unixbench.score 19.2% improvement

Hi maintainers,

A gentle ping.

Thanks,
Shaokun

On 2021/4/20 14:10, kernel test robot wrote:
>
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a 19.2% improvement of unixbench.score due to commit:
>
>
> commit: aec499039e7b21224ef29e5a2daba328aec14442 ("[PATCH] fs: Optimized file struct to improve performance")
> url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Shaokun-Zhang/fs-Optimized-file-struct-to-improve-performance/20210409-114859
> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git 5e46d1b78a03d52306f21f77a4e4a144b6d31486
>
> in testcase: unixbench
> on test machine: 96 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU @ 2.30GHz with 128G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> runtime: 300s
> nr_task: 30%
> test: syscall
> cpufreq_governor: performance
> ucode: 0x4003006
>
> test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system.
> test-url: https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> bin/lkp run compatible-job.yaml
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/runtime/tbox_group/test/testcase/ucode:
> gcc-9/performance/x86_64-rhel-8.3/30%/debian-10.4-x86_64-20200603.cgz/300s/lkp-csl-2sp4/syscall/unixbench/0x4003006
>
> commit:
> 5e46d1b78a ("reiserfs: update reiserfs_xattrs_initialized() condition")
> aec499039e ("fs: Optimized file struct to improve performance")
>
> 5e46d1b78a03d523 aec499039e7b21224ef29e5a2da
> ---------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 2768 +19.2% 3298 unixbench.score
> 176.43 +19.8% 211.43 unixbench.time.user_time
> 1.622e+09 +19.2% 1.933e+09 unixbench.workload
> 348.17 ? 48% -25.2% 260.57 ? 68% proc-vmstat.nr_mlock
> 4081405 ?133% -99.2% 33639 ? 15% turbostat.C1
> 1.348e+10 ? 89% -76.6% 3.151e+09 ?190% cpuidle.C6.time
> 1360129 ?137% -86.4% 184629 ? 2% cpuidle.POLL.time
> 1.00 ? 10% -0.2 0.81 ? 3% mpstat.cpu.all.irq%
> 0.49 +0.1 0.59 mpstat.cpu.all.usr%
> 0.01 ? 23% -36.4% 0.00 ? 13% perf-sched.sch_delay.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.rcu_gp_kthread.kthread.ret_from_fork
> 0.06 ? 43% -48.4% 0.03 ? 42% perf-sched.sch_delay.max.ms.do_task_dead.do_exit.do_group_exit.__x64_sys_exit_group.do_syscall_64
> 0.05 ? 49% -55.1% 0.02 ? 47% perf-sched.sch_delay.max.ms.schedule_hrtimeout_range_clock.ep_poll.do_epoll_wait.__x64_sys_epoll_wait
> 765.20 ? 20% -34.3% 502.83 ? 29% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
> 1930 ? 13% -31.8% 1316 ? 30% perf-sched.wait_and_delay.max.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
> 765.19 ? 20% -34.3% 502.82 ? 29% perf-sched.wait_time.avg.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
> 1930 ? 13% -31.8% 1316 ? 30% perf-sched.wait_time.max.ms.schedule_timeout.io_schedule_timeout.wait_for_completion_io.blk_execute_rq
> 2787 ?215% -100.0% 0.71 ?162% interrupts.124:PCI-MSI.31981657-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-88
> 385.17 ?128% -99.9% 0.29 ?158% interrupts.61:PCI-MSI.31981594-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-25
> 4052 ? 49% -57.3% 1732 ?102% interrupts.CPU27.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 4052 ? 49% -57.3% 1732 ?102% interrupts.CPU27.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 438.67 ?122% +697.3% 3497 ? 37% interrupts.CPU3.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 438.67 ?122% +697.3% 3497 ? 37% interrupts.CPU3.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 289.00 ? 84% +1542.3% 4746 ? 24% interrupts.CPU51.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 289.00 ? 84% +1542.3% 4746 ? 24% interrupts.CPU51.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 135.17 ? 18% -29.9% 94.71 ? 26% interrupts.CPU59.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
> 4872 ? 27% -48.9% 2490 ? 90% interrupts.CPU74.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> 4872 ? 27% -48.9% 2490 ? 90% interrupts.CPU74.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> 2786 ?215% -100.0% 0.43 ?169% interrupts.CPU88.124:PCI-MSI.31981657-edge.i40e-eth0-TxRx-88
> 13.38 ? 7% -13.4 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 30.66 ? 9% -6.4 24.27 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 30.82 ? 9% -6.4 24.46 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 7.10 ? 8% -1.3 5.85 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
> 7.14 ? 8% -1.2 5.89 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
> 7.18 ? 8% -1.2 5.93 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
> 7.15 ? 8% -1.2 5.91 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe.__close
> 7.27 ? 8% -1.2 6.04 ? 11% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.__close
> 5.29 ? 8% +5.4 10.68 ? 10% perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.fput_many.filp_close.__x64_sys_close.do_syscall_64.entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe
> 13.39 ? 7% -13.3 0.07 ? 12% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush
> 37.79 ? 8% -7.6 30.16 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.filp_close
> 37.97 ? 8% -7.6 30.36 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__x64_sys_close
> 7.30 ? 8% -1.2 6.07 ? 11% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__close
> 0.70 ? 10% -0.1 0.56 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.hrtimer_interrupt
> 0.71 ? 11% -0.1 0.57 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt
> 0.39 ? 16% -0.1 0.29 ? 9% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.__hrtimer_run_queues
> 0.27 ? 13% -0.1 0.22 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.tick_sched_timer
> 5.29 ? 8% +5.4 10.69 ? 10% perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.fput_many
> 13.33 ? 7% -13.3 0.06 ? 11% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.dnotify_flush
> 5.27 ? 8% +5.4 10.64 ? 10% perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.fput_many
> 17.97 ? 46% -58.2% 7.51 ? 16% perf-stat.i.MPKI
> 1.073e+09 +16.2% 1.247e+09 perf-stat.i.branch-instructions
> 2.60 ? 34% -1.0 1.62 ? 2% perf-stat.i.branch-miss-rate%
> 56435130 ? 26% -31.6% 38588360 ? 21% perf-stat.i.cache-references
> 12.06 ? 3% -15.8% 10.16 perf-stat.i.cpi
> 0.10 ?100% -0.1 0.02 ?202% perf-stat.i.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 1.682e+09 +16.9% 1.965e+09 perf-stat.i.dTLB-loads
> 0.03 ? 93% -0.0 0.01 ?142% perf-stat.i.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
> 1.11e+09 +17.5% 1.304e+09 perf-stat.i.dTLB-stores
> 5.314e+09 +16.2% 6.176e+09 perf-stat.i.instructions
> 0.10 ? 11% +18.1% 0.12 ? 2% perf-stat.i.ipc
> 40.93 +16.1% 47.51 perf-stat.i.metric.M/sec
> 89.63 ? 2% +6.5 96.16 perf-stat.i.node-load-miss-rate%
> 3653512 ? 3% -57.3% 1561506 perf-stat.i.node-load-misses
> 371566 ? 19% -90.8% 34031 ? 8% perf-stat.i.node-loads
> 10.59 ? 25% -40.8% 6.27 ? 23% perf-stat.overall.MPKI
> 1.92 ? 8% -0.3 1.61 perf-stat.overall.branch-miss-rate%
> 13.04 -14.2% 11.19 perf-stat.overall.cpi
> 0.02 ? 89% -0.0 0.00 ?148% perf-stat.overall.dTLB-load-miss-rate%
> 0.00 ? 72% -0.0 0.00 ? 69% perf-stat.overall.dTLB-store-miss-rate%
> 318.50 +13.2% 360.58 perf-stat.overall.instructions-per-iTLB-miss
> 0.08 +16.6% 0.09 perf-stat.overall.ipc
> 90.76 ? 2% +7.1 97.87 perf-stat.overall.node-load-miss-rate%
> 1286 -2.7% 1251 perf-stat.overall.path-length
> 1.072e+09 +16.2% 1.246e+09 perf-stat.ps.branch-instructions
> 1.68e+09 +16.9% 1.964e+09 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-loads
> 1.109e+09 +17.6% 1.303e+09 perf-stat.ps.dTLB-stores
> 5.307e+09 +16.3% 6.171e+09 perf-stat.ps.instructions
> 3649615 ? 3% -57.2% 1560409 perf-stat.ps.node-load-misses
> 371135 ? 19% -90.9% 33946 ? 8% perf-stat.ps.node-loads
> 2.086e+12 +16.0% 2.419e+12 perf-stat.total.instructions
> 10629 ? 12% -17.7% 8746 ? 8% softirqs.CPU10.RCU
> 9891 ? 7% -14.6% 8447 ? 9% softirqs.CPU13.RCU
> 43153 ? 3% -7.4% 39975 ? 4% softirqs.CPU30.SCHED
> 9938 ? 6% -12.9% 8660 ? 2% softirqs.CPU33.RCU
> 9900 ? 9% -14.1% 8500 ? 5% softirqs.CPU38.RCU
> 9730 ? 6% -10.3% 8731 ? 7% softirqs.CPU40.RCU
> 10238 ? 8% -15.0% 8703 ? 9% softirqs.CPU44.RCU
> 10045 ? 10% -15.7% 8471 ? 6% softirqs.CPU45.RCU
> 10074 ? 7% -15.4% 8524 ? 6% softirqs.CPU46.RCU
> 9793 ? 6% -12.0% 8617 ? 8% softirqs.CPU49.RCU
> 10809 ? 18% -19.0% 8750 ? 8% softirqs.CPU50.RCU
> 10484 ? 7% -13.3% 9088 ? 10% softirqs.CPU53.RCU
> 10059 ? 7% -13.2% 8732 ? 7% softirqs.CPU54.RCU
> 10298 ? 4% -13.5% 8912 ? 7% softirqs.CPU55.RCU
> 9932 ? 8% -12.4% 8699 ? 5% softirqs.CPU60.RCU
> 10268 ? 9% -17.1% 8514 ? 7% softirqs.CPU61.RCU
> 9895 ? 5% -9.0% 9008 ? 5% softirqs.CPU67.RCU
> 10294 ? 8% -12.0% 9060 ? 5% softirqs.CPU68.RCU
> 11048 ? 14% -17.2% 9152 ? 6% softirqs.CPU69.RCU
> 9586 ? 7% -9.1% 8715 ? 5% softirqs.CPU74.RCU
> 9555 ? 7% -10.1% 8587 ? 5% softirqs.CPU76.RCU
> 9892 ? 10% -14.8% 8425 ? 5% softirqs.CPU80.RCU
> 9722 ? 6% -13.5% 8407 ? 6% softirqs.CPU82.RCU
> 9883 ? 6% -12.7% 8624 ? 4% softirqs.CPU83.RCU
> 9507 ? 5% -9.9% 8567 ? 4% softirqs.CPU84.RCU
> 9878 ? 8% -14.1% 8485 ? 3% softirqs.CPU85.RCU
> 37959 ? 4% -12.9% 33055 ? 6% softirqs.CPU85.SCHED
> 10338 ? 12% -16.6% 8623 ? 4% softirqs.CPU86.RCU
> 9885 ? 8% -14.8% 8423 ? 4% softirqs.CPU87.RCU
> 9934 ? 7% -12.9% 8649 ? 5% softirqs.CPU88.RCU
> 10119 ? 8% -16.0% 8502 ? 5% softirqs.CPU89.RCU
> 9958 ? 7% -13.5% 8612 ? 4% softirqs.CPU92.RCU
> 9917 ? 8% -14.3% 8498 ? 5% softirqs.CPU93.RCU
> 10070 ? 8% -14.3% 8625 ? 6% softirqs.CPU94.RCU
> 10157 ? 11% -11.7% 8967 ? 7% softirqs.CPU95.RCU
> 19377 ? 60% -69.7% 5871 ? 82% softirqs.NET_RX
> 944995 ? 4% -10.5% 845954 ? 6% softirqs.RCU
>
>
>
> unixbench.score
>
> 3400 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> 3300 |-+O O O OO OO OO OO |
> |O O OO O O O |
> 3200 |-+ O O O O |
> 3100 |-+ |
> | |
> 3000 |-+ |
> 2900 |-+ |
> 2800 |-+ .+ ++. |
> | +. .++ +.+++.++.++.++.++ :+ +|
> 2700 |+.++. .+ +. +.+ .++.+ + .++ + : + |
> 2600 |-+ ++ + :.+ + ++ + + + |
> | + : + :+ |
> 2500 |-+ + + |
> 2400 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> unixbench.workload
>
> 2e+09 +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | O O O OO OO OOO O |
> 1.9e+09 |O+ O OO O O |
> | O O O O O |
> | |
> 1.8e+09 |-+ |
> | |
> 1.7e+09 |-+ |
> | + ++. |
> 1.6e+09 |-+ + + .+ ++ +.+++.++.+++.++.+ :+ +|
> |+.+ + + :+ +.+ .+++ +. +.+ + : + |
> | ++ .+ + + + ++ + + + |
> 1.5e+09 |-+ + + :+ |
> | + |
> 1.4e+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
>