Re: Kernel 4.7rc3 - Performance drop 30-40% for SPECjbb2005 and SPECjvm2008 benchmarks against 4.6 kernel

[Jirka Hladky]

Hi Peter,

the kernel I got with bisecting does not work - I'm getting kernel
panic during the boot.

In any case, the regression was introduced between
git bisect good 64b7aad
git bisect bad 2159197

This commit is good:
64b7aad - Ingo Molnar, 7 weeks ago : Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into
sched/core, to pick up fixes before applying new changes

This commit is bad:
2159197 - Peter Zijlstra, 8 weeks ago : sched/core: Enable increased
load resolution on 64-bit kernels

Could you please have a look?

Thanks a lot!
Jirka


On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Jirka Hladky <jhladky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> OK, I have reviewed my results once again:
>
> This commit is fine:
> 64b7aad - Ingo Molnar, 7 weeks ago : Merge branch 'sched/urgent' into
> sched/core, to pick up fixes before applying new changes
>
> This version has already a problem:
> 2159197 - Peter Zijlstra, 8 weeks ago : sched/core: Enable increased
> load resolution on 64-bit kernels
>
> git bisect start
> git bisect good 64b7aad
> git bisect bad 2159197
> Bisecting: 1 revision left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
> [eb58075149b7f0300ff19142e6245fe75db2a081] sched/core: Introduce
> 'struct rq_flags'
>
> I should have results pretty soon.
>
> Jirka
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Jirka Hladky <jhladky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> crap - I have done bisecting manually (not using git bisect) and I
>> have probably done some mistake.
>>
>> Commits (git checkout <commit>) for which I got BAD results:
>>
>> 2159197d66770ec01f75c93fb11dc66df81fd45b
>> 6ecdd74962f246dfe8750b7bea481a1c0816315d
>>
>> Commits (git checkout <commit>) for which I got GOOD results:
>> 21e96f88776deead303ecd30a17d1d7c2a1776e3
>> 64b7aad5798478ffff52e110878ccaae4c3aaa34
>> e7904a28f5331c21d17af638cb477c83662e3cb6
>>
>> I will try to use git bisect now.
>> ï
>> Jirka
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 11:52:45AM +0200, Jirka Hladky wrote:
>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> the performance regression has been caused by this commit
>>>>
>>>> =================================================
>>>> commit 6ecdd74962f246dfe8750b7bea481a1c0816315d
>>>> Author: Yuyang Du <yuyang.du@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Date:   Tue Apr 5 12:12:26 2016 +0800
>>>>
>>>>     sched/fair: Generalize the load/util averages resolution definition
>>>> =================================================
>>>>
>>>> Could you please have a look?
>>>
>>> That patch looks like a NO-OP to me.
>>>
>>> In any case, the good news it that I can run the benchmark, the bad news
>>> is that the patch you fingered doesn't appear to be it.
>>>
>>>
>>> v4.60:
>>> ./4.6.0/2016-Jun-22_11h11m07s.log:Score on xml.transform: 2007.18 ops/m
>>> ./4.6.0/2016-Jun-22_11h11m07s.log:Score on xml.validation: 2999.44 ops/m
>>>
>>> tip/master:
>>> ./4.7.0-rc4-00345-gf6e78bb/2016-Jun-22_11h30m27s.log:Score on xml.transform: 1283.14 ops/m
>>> ./4.7.0-rc4-00345-gf6e78bb/2016-Jun-22_11h30m27s.log:Score on xml.validation: 2008.62 ops/m
>>>
>>> patch^1
>>> ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197/2016-Jun-22_12h38m50s.log:Score on xml.transform: 1196.18 ops/m
>>> ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197/2016-Jun-22_12h38m50s.log:Score on xml.validation: 2055.11 ops/m
>>>
>>> patch^1 + patch
>>> ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197-dirty/2016-Jun-22_12h55m43s.log:Score on xml.transform: 1294.59 ops/m
>>> ./4.6.0-rc5-00034-g2159197-dirty/2016-Jun-22_12h55m43s.log:Score on xml.validation: 2140.02 ops/m
>>>
>>>