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;
Date:   Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:25:02 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Norbert <nbrtt01@gmail.com>
Cc:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, frederic@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased
 up to 3x
Message-ID: <YW1ZjroFfmKM9HJe@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <035c23b4-118e-6a35-36d9-1b11e3d679f8@gmail.com>
 <YWlBUVDy9gOMiXls@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <5fe0ffa5-f2db-ca79-5a10-305310066ff9@gmail.com>
 <20211015100401.45833169@gandalf.local.home>
 <8691a8ec-410d-afe8-f468-eefe698c6751@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8691a8ec-410d-afe8-f468-eefe698c6751@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 09:08:58PM -0700, Norbert wrote:

> > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 12:43:45AM -0700, Norbert wrote:
> > > > > Performance regression: thread wakeup time (latency) increased up to 3x.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Happened between 5.13.8 and 5.14.0. Still happening at least on 5.14.11.

> So git-bisect finally identified the following commit.
> The performance difference came in a single step. Times were consistent with
> my first post either the slow time or the fast time,
> as far as I could tell during the bisection.
> 
> It is a bit unfortunate that this comes from an attempt to reduce OS noise.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> commit a5183862e76fdc25f36b39c2489b816a5c66e2e5
> Author: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
> Date:   Thu May 13 01:29:16 2021 +0200
> 
>     tick/nohz: Conditionally restart tick on idle exit
> 
>     In nohz_full mode, switching from idle to a task will unconditionally
>     issue a tick restart. If the task is alone in the runqueue or is the
>     highest priority, the tick will fire once then eventually stop. But that
>     alone is still undesired noise.
> 
>     Therefore, only restart the tick on idle exit when it's strictly
>     necessary.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Yunfeng Ye <yeyunfeng@huawei.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <frederic@kernel.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>     Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>     Link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210512232924.150322-3-frederic@kernel.org
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Is there anything else to do to complete this report?

So it _could_ be you're seeing increased use of deeper idle states due
to less noise. I'm forever forgetting what the most friendly tool is for
checking that (powertop can I think), Rafael?

One thing to try is boot with idle=halt and see if that makes a
different.

Also, let me Cc all the people involved.. the thread starts:

  https://lkml.kernel.org/r/035c23b4-118e-6a35-36d9-1b11e3d679f8@gmail.com