Re: [lkp-robot] [iversion] c0cef30e4f: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.0% regression

From: Jeff Layton
Date: Sun Feb 25 2018 - 10:41:23 EST

On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 23:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -18.0% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
>
>
> commit: c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> in testcase: aim7
> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz with 384G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> disk: 4BRD_12G
> md: RAID0
> fs: xfs
> test: disk_src
> load: 3000
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
> test-description: AIM7 is a traditional UNIX system level benchmark suite which is used to test and measure the performance of multiuser system.
> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/aimbench/files/aim-suite7/
>
>

I'm a bit suspicious of this result.

This patch only changes inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} (since renamed to
inode_eq_iversion{+raw}), and that neither should ever be called from
xfs. The patch is fairly trivial too, and I wouldn't expect a big
performance hit.

Is IMA involved here at all? I didn't see any evidence of it, but the
kernel config did have it enabled.


>
> Details are as below:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>
>
> To reproduce:
>
> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> cd lkp-tests
> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>
> =========================================================================================
> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/load/md/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> gcc-7/performance/4BRD_12G/xfs/x86_64-rhel-7.2/3000/RAID0/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-ivb-ep01/disk_src/aim7
>
> commit:
> 3da90b159b (" f2fs-for-4.16-rc1")
> c0cef30e4f ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
>
> 3da90b159b146672 c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8
> ---------------- --------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \
> 40183 -18.0% 32964 aim7.jobs-per-min
> 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time
> 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time.max
> 5615 Â 5% +33.4% 7489 Â 4% aim7.time.involuntary_context_switches
> 3086 +14.0% 3518 aim7.time.system_time
> 19439782 -5.6% 18359474 aim7.time.voluntary_context_switches
> 199333 +14.3% 227794 Â 2% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> 0.59 -0.1 0.50 mpstat.cpu.usr%
> 2839401 +16.0% 3293688 softirqs.SCHED
> 7600068 +15.1% 8747820 softirqs.TIMER
> 118.00 Â 43% +98.7% 234.50 Â 15% vmstat.io.bo
> 87840 -22.4% 68154 vmstat.system.cs
> 552798 Â 6% +15.8% 640107 Â 4% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
> 557345 Â 6% +15.7% 644666 Â 4% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
> 528341 Â 7% +21.7% 642933 Â 4% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
> 531604 Â 7% +21.6% 646209 Â 4% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
> 2.147e+09 -12.4% 1.88e+09 cpuidle.C1.time
> 13702041 -14.7% 11683737 cpuidle.C1.usage
> 2.082e+08 Â 4% +28.1% 2.667e+08 Â 5% cpuidle.C1E.time
> 4.719e+08 Â 2% +23.1% 5.807e+08 Â 4% cpuidle.C3.time
> 1.141e+10 +31.0% 1.496e+10 cpuidle.C6.time
> 15672622 +27.8% 20031028 cpuidle.C6.usage
> 13520572 Â 3% +29.5% 17514398 Â 9% cpuidle.POLL.time
> 278.25 Â 5% -46.0% 150.25 Â 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirtied
> 3200 Â 14% -20.6% 2542 Â 19% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
> 277.75 Â 5% -46.2% 149.50 Â 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_written
> 28.50 Â 52% +448.2% 156.25 Â 70% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirtied
> 2577 Â 19% +26.3% 3255 Â 15% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_mapped
> 634338 Â 4% +7.8% 683959 Â 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
> 457411 Â 6% +10.8% 506800 Â 5% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
> 3734 Â 8% -11.5% 3306 Â 6% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
> 1114538 +18.3% 1318978 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> 1106722 +18.5% 1311136 proc-vmstat.numa_local
> 22100 +7.5% 23753 Â 4% proc-vmstat.numa_pages_migrated
> 1174556 +18.0% 1386359 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
> 1241445 +18.1% 1466086 proc-vmstat.pgfault
> 1138310 +19.3% 1358132 proc-vmstat.pgfree
> 22100 +7.5% 23753 Â 4% proc-vmstat.pgmigrate_success
> 53332 Â 43% +143.0% 129617 Â 14% proc-vmstat.pgpgout
> 1.42 Â 2% +1.7 3.07 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
> 1.064e+10 +123.3% 2.375e+10 perf-stat.branch-misses
> 10.79 +0.6 11.43 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
> 5.583e+09 +5.9% 5.915e+09 perf-stat.cache-misses
> 39652092 -5.0% 37662545 perf-stat.context-switches
> 1.29 +11.7% 1.44 perf-stat.cpi
> 4.637e+12 +12.8% 5.23e+12 perf-stat.cpu-cycles
> 8.653e+11 +9.8% 9.498e+11 Â 2% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
> 3.654e+11 +12.4% 4.109e+11 perf-stat.dTLB-stores
> 0.78 -10.5% 0.70 perf-stat.ipc
> 1214932 +17.9% 1432266 perf-stat.minor-faults
> 1.334e+09 -1.8% 1.31e+09 perf-stat.node-store-misses
> 1.651e+09 -1.8% 1.62e+09 perf-stat.node-stores
> 1214954 +17.9% 1432313 perf-stat.page-faults
> 256.75 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Avg_MHz
> 21.39 -21.4 0.00 turbostat.Busy%
> 1200 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Bzy_MHz
> 13695007 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1
> 11.92 -11.9 0.00 turbostat.C1%
> 2116683 Â 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1E
> 1.16 Â 4% -1.2 0.00 turbostat.C1E%
> 3112269 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C3
> 2.62 Â 2% -2.6 0.00 turbostat.C3%
> 15671277 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C6
> 63.38 -63.4 0.00 turbostat.C6%
> 49.46 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c1
> 1.42 Â 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c3
> 27.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c6
> 31.41 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CorWatt
> 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CoreTmp
> 18919351 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.IRQ
> 1.21 Â 18% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc2
> 0.67 Â 31% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc6
> 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgTmp
> 57.63 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgWatt
> 30.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.RAMWatt
> 36030 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.SMI
> 3000 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.TSC_MHz
>
>
> aim7.jobs-per-min
>
> 41000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | ..+....+.... ..+....+....+.... ..+....+....+...+.... |
> 40000 +-+ +. +.. + |
> 39000 +-+ |
> | |
> 38000 +-+ |
> 37000 +-+ |
> | |
> 36000 +-+ |
> 35000 +-+ |
> | |
> 34000 +-+ |
> 33000 +-+ O O |
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> 32000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad sample
>
>
>
> Disclaimer:
> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>