Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760296AbaGYOb4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:31:56 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:17679 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752137AbaGYObz (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:31:55 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.01,731,1400050800"; d="scan'208";a="575400786" Message-ID: <53D26A3C.6080707@intel.com> Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 22:31:24 +0800 From: Aaron Lu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mike Galbraith CC: "Paul E. McKenney" , Jet Chen , LKML , lkp@01.org, Fengguang Wu Subject: Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps References: <53d1f486.t70cWJ/Ilm6Y3o5/%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <53D1FD0E.4080406@intel.com> <1406273721.5162.9.camel@marge.simpson.net> <53D20FD0.90204@intel.com> <1406281461.5162.38.camel@marge.simpson.net> In-Reply-To: <1406281461.5162.38.camel@marge.simpson.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/25/2014 05:44 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >> On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote: >>> On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: >>>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master >>>> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs") >>>> >>>> abaa93d9e1de2c2 c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec >>>> --------------- ------------------------- >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR >>>> 12654 ~ 0% -1.5% 12470 ~ 0% TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps >>> >>> Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test? In my >> >> The cmdline for this test is: >> netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 > > Thanks. That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still > expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck. But no > matter, I was just curious. The bisect is done by the LKP test system(developed by Fengguang) automatically so it's not that painful for me :-) But as you have said, the 1.5% change is too small and probably doesn't worth a report, I'll be more careful next time when examining the report. > > Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if > it's enabled. Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to > remove that variable? Dunno, just a thought. I only mention it because The CONFIG_NO_HZ_FULL is set to y, I'll disable it to see if the number changes, thanks for the tips. Regards, Aaron > your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky. > > -Mike > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/