Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:46:18PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>>Wei Yang <richardw.y...@linux.intel.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 11:10:49AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 01:19:04PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:59:45AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>>>>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 03:54:42PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>>> > >Greeting,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >FYI, we noticed a -12.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>>> > >due to commit:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >commit: 570d0200123fb4f809aa2f6226e93a458d664d70 ("driver core: move
>>>>> > >device->knode_class to device_private")
>>>>> > >https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > This is interesting.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I didn't expect the move of this field will impact the performance.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > The reason is struct device is a hotter memory than
>>>>> > device->device_private?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >in testcase: will-it-scale
>>>>> > >on test machine: 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory
>>>>> > >with following parameters:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > nr_task: 100%
>>>>> > > mode: thread
>>>>> > > test: unlink2
>>>>> > > cpufreq_governor: performance
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1
>>>>> > >through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It
>>>>> > >builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any
>>>>> > >differences between the two.
>>>>> > >test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the
>>>>> > >following tests:
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>> > >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>>> > >-29.9% regression |
>>>>> > >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | mode=thread
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | nr_task=100%
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | test=signal1
>>>>> > > |
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I'm going to blame your testing system, or something here, and not
>>>>> the above patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> All this test does is call raise(3). That does not touch the driver
>>>>> core at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> > >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>> > >| testcase: change | will-it-scale: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>>> > >-16.5% regression |
>>>>> > >| test machine | 288 threads Knights Mill with 80G memory
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| test parameters | cpufreq_governor=performance
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | mode=thread
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | nr_task=100%
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >| | test=open1
>>>>> > > |
>>>>> > >+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------+
>>>>>
>>>>> Same here, open1 just calls open/close a lot. No driver core
>>>>> interaction at all there either.
>>>>>
>>>>> So are you _sure_ this is the offending patch?
>>>>
>>>>Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>>We did an experiment, recovered the layout of struct device. and we
>>>>found the regression is gone. I guess the regession is not from the
>>>>patch but related to the struct layout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>tests: 1
>>>>testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run:
>>>>will-it-scale/performance-thread-100%-unlink2/lkp-knm01
>>>>
>>>>570d0200123fb4f8 a36dc70b810afe9183de2ea18f
>>>>---------------- --------------------------
>>>> %stddev change %stddev
>>>> \ | \
>>>> 237096 14% 270789 will-it-scale.workload
>>>> 823 14% 939 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you have the comparison between a36dc70b810afe9183de2ea18f and the one
>>> before 570d020012?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>tests: 1
>>>>testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run:
>>>>will-it-scale/performance-thread-100%-signal1/lkp-knm01
>>>>
>>>>570d0200123fb4f8 a36dc70b810afe9183de2ea18f
>>>>---------------- --------------------------
>>>> %stddev change %stddev
>>>> \ | \
>>>> 93.51 3% 48% 138.53 3% will-it-scale.time.user_time
>>>> 186 40% 261 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>> 53909 40% 75507 will-it-scale.workload
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>tests: 1
>>>>testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run:
>>>>will-it-scale/performance-thread-100%-open1/lkp-knm01
>>>>
>>>>570d0200123fb4f8 a36dc70b810afe9183de2ea18f
>>>>---------------- --------------------------
>>>> %stddev change %stddev
>>>> \ | \
>>>> 447722 22% 546258 10%
>>>> will-it-scale.time.involuntary_context_switches
>>>> 226995 19% 269751 will-it-scale.workload
>>>> 787 19% 936 will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>commit a36dc70b810afe9183de2ea18faa4c0939c139ac
>>>>Author: 0day robot <l...@intel.com>
>>>>Date: Wed Feb 20 14:21:19 2019 +0800
>>>>
>>>> backfile klist_node in struct device for debugging
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: 0day robot <l...@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>>diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
>>>>index d0e452fd0bff2..31666cb72b3ba 100644
>>>>--- a/include/linux/device.h
>>>>+++ b/include/linux/device.h
>>>>@@ -1035,6 +1035,7 @@ struct device {
>>>> spinlock_t devres_lock;
>>>> struct list_head devres_head;
>>>>
>>>>+ struct klist_node knode_class_test_by_rongc;
>>>> struct class *class;
>>>> const struct attribute_group **groups; /* optional groups */
>>>
>>> Hmm... because this is not properly aligned?
>>>
>>> struct klist_node {
>>> void *n_klist; /* never access directly */
>>> struct list_head n_node;
>>> struct kref n_ref;
>>> };
>>>
>>> Except struct kref has one "int" type, others are pointers.
>>>
>>> But... I am still confused.
>>
>>I guess because the size of struct device is changed, it influences some
>>alignment changes in the system. Thus influence the benchmark score.
>>
>
> That's interesting.
>
> I wrote a module to see the exact size of these two structure on my x86_64.
>
> sizeof(struct device) = 736 = 8 * 92
> sizeof(struct device_private) = 160 = 8 * 20
> sizeof(struct klist_node) = 32 = 8 * 4
>
> Even klist_node has one 4 byte field, c complier would pack the structure to
> make it aligned. Which system alignment it would affect?
>
> After the patch, size would change like this:
>
> struct device 736 -> 704
> struce device_private 160 -> 192
>
> Would this size change affect system?
Yes. I guess these size change may affect system performance. Some
other objects may share slab page with these objects.
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
>>Best Regards,
>>Huang, Ying
>>
>>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>Rong Chen
