Re: [LKP] Re: [perf/x86] 81ec3f3c4c: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -5.5% regression
From: Feng Tang
Date: Sun Feb 23 2020 - 21:19:22 EST
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 05:06:33PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > ffffffff8225b580 d types__ptrace
> > ffffffff8225b5c0 D root_user
> > ffffffff8225b680 D init_user_ns
> I'm assuming this is after the alignment patch (since that's 64-byte
> aligned there).
> What was it without the alignment?
ffffffff8225b4c0 d types__ptrace
ffffffff8225b4e0 D root_user
ffffffff8225b580 D init_user_ns
For 5.0-rc6 + 81ec3f3c4c4
ffffffff8225b580 d types__ptrace
ffffffff8225b5a0 D root_user
ffffffff8225b640 D init_user_ns
The sigpending and __count are in the same cachline.
> > No, it's not the biggest, I tried another machine 'Xeon Phi(TM) CPU 7295',
> > which has 72C/288T, and the regression is not seen. This is the part
> > confusing me :)
> Humor me - what happens if you turn off SMT on that Cascade Lake
> system? Maybe it's about the thread ID bit in the L1? Although again,
> I'd have expected things to get _worse_ if it's the two fields that
> are now in the same cachline thanks to alignment.
I'll try it and report back.
> The Xeon Phi is the small-core setup, right? They may be slow enough
> to not show the issue as clearly despite having more cores. And it
> wouldn't show effects of some out-of-order speculative cache accesses.
Yes, seems the Xeon Phi is using 72 Silvermont cores. And the less bigger
platform I tested was a 2 sockets 48C/96T Cascadelake platform which
doesn't reproduce the regression.