Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:a0d1:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j17csp2216001pxa; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxaeo8t/8x9CWNwIeI4FJJcHEXO3eMaRA46iMEOJW4nUyvqGgKAt92/bVK8IgYhH/HhhQh/ X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cd6c:: with SMTP id ca12mr5619348edb.365.1598282184406; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1598282184; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=dANcnnEFMUrGekk8rjndPqzig/VoX1KGsbj0LgljOPuW9EjRTGGE5rYXEGvIGd+JMV CLIAvTzgvoylqaIZus01kWlgZl4pngz0mEG9xV7/NYgg03YTgRo11LkFMzjNHdaCk3lh Aq+ScIqCI01K6tri2BAPBph+0EJteWZGDlR1earWm7DxqOuzcvNtf30Ea7/ktFydtkzd FDNRrfZ5fmVrvpIQ6ZDssypDl8iCK/zl6fVV4oA1FFySJNMo651enDGQqOVfOjW+tIuG sH6dnjHk7qRNS5xShK4LgcQ8PEPikz5c0US3j65wrG9g1nEFIgkS+DcdZrTfcnzmk/Gd VvHg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=R4jM0LXxZyjq9Dz1HiZDcq3URkaWf5Q12e8f+lC9Oj8=; b=d/LBt2fqzba4JUl8kENtZc/VN00Vmhq+DJ1j2ULDpxHrfmFqqaE50xoiOqQcDlFmv0 9GClFR9m4JurBEziLHqwNb62dq9lJ2xrn8K5B1UW43EPCqZtFE1J7FPLpBbQPoOOfle7 Tf82uKyxbzOekT8Hwcu5+ccoEhJBhKfdlTfFGBu8iH4AjUgBjNXbPIMi9ZXkrmJn1Lv9 rHl6vI7MsfmXWEbTCbp0KpGsnE4pbqmH7Z6UTk4WXYIvUdKB1sn4SZ+A9l6NhHAz3vEe 65OXrZeU/t6UYX+/JLwf+bVAMicZS2aYQytLQbCMRFF5B4CrAM6TA7DGmkIhf94iJdCN BX6g== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q2si7242649edn.377.2020.08.24.08.16.00; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726473AbgHXPPU (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:15:20 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:42298 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725946AbgHXPOZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2020 11:14:25 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA00AABCC; Mon, 24 Aug 2020 15:14:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:14:25 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Feng Tang Cc: "Luck, Tony" , kernel test robot , LKML , lkp@lists.01.org, Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [x86/mce] 1de08dccd3: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -14.1% regression Message-ID: <20200824151425.GF4794@zn.tnic> References: <20200425114414.GU26573@shao2-debian> <20200425130136.GA28245@zn.tnic> <20200818082943.GA65567@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200818200654.GA21494@agluck-desk2.amr.corp.intel.com> <20200819020437.GA2605@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200821020259.GA90000@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20200821020259.GA90000@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:02:59AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > 1de08dccd383 x86/mce: Add a struct mce.kflags field > 9554bfe403bd x86/mce: Convert the CEC to use the MCE notifier > > And strange thing is after using gcc9 and debian10 rootfs, with same commits > the regression turns to a improvement, How so? > though the trend keeps, that if we > changes the kflags from __u64 to __u32, the performance will be no change. > > Following is the comparing of regression, I also attached the perf-profile > for old and new commit (let me know if you need more data) > > > 9554bfe403bdfc08 1de08dccd383482a3e88845d355 > ---------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ > 192362 -15.1% 163343 will-it-scale.287.processes > 0.91 +0.2% 0.92 will-it-scale.287.processes_idle > 669.67 -15.1% 568.50 will-it-scale.per_process_ops This is the data from your previous measurement: 9554bfe403bdfc08 1de08dccd383482a3e88845d355 ---------------- --------------------------- %stddev %change %stddev \ | \ 668.00 -14.1% 573.75 will-it-scale.per_process_ops If I'm reading it correctly, commit 1de08dccd383 ("x86/mce: Add a struct mce.kflags field") is still the slower one vs 9554bfe403bd ("x86/mce: Convert the CEC to use the MCE notifier") Or am I misreading it? In any case, this really looks like what Tony said: this enlargement of struct mce pushes some variable into a cacheline-misaligned placement, causing it to bounce. The $ 10^6 question is, which variable is that... -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg