Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-29 Thread Huang, Ying 
David Ahern  writes:

> On 9/23/15 6:37 PM, Huang Ying wrote:
>>>
>>> I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?
>>>
>>> With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between
>>> 8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?
>>
>> The kconfig file is attached with the mail.  It appears that
>> CONFIG_NET_VRF is disabled.
>>
>
> Something is not adding up. I anticipate access to a multi-socket numa
> system in the next few days. Until then a couple of questions:
>
> 1. do you take patches to run your tests?

No.  We checkout your commits and test them.  Without applying any other 
patches.

> 2. do you have a wiki/web page with all of the tests run?

Sorry, we still have no this information now.

> I'd like to
> know what other networking tests have been run. Only this one was
> flagged, so I presume it means other tests did not hit the
> threshold. I would like to know what other tests are run.

For the commit and its parent, we have only tested the benchmark in the
report email.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-29 Thread Huang, Ying 
David Ahern  writes:

> On 9/23/15 6:37 PM, Huang Ying wrote:
>>>
>>> I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?
>>>
>>> With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between
>>> 8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?
>>
>> The kconfig file is attached with the mail.  It appears that
>> CONFIG_NET_VRF is disabled.
>>
>
> Something is not adding up. I anticipate access to a multi-socket numa
> system in the next few days. Until then a couple of questions:
>
> 1. do you take patches to run your tests?

No.  We checkout your commits and test them.  Without applying any other 
patches.

> 2. do you have a wiki/web page with all of the tests run?

Sorry, we still have no this information now.

> I'd like to
> know what other networking tests have been run. Only this one was
> flagged, so I presume it means other tests did not hit the
> threshold. I would like to know what other tests are run.

For the commit and its parent, we have only tested the benchmark in the
report email.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-23 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/23/15 6:37 PM, Huang Ying wrote:


I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?

With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between
8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?


The kconfig file is attached with the mail.  It appears that
CONFIG_NET_VRF is disabled.



Something is not adding up. I anticipate access to a multi-socket numa 
system in the next few days. Until then a couple of questions:


1. do you take patches to run your tests?

2. do you have a wiki/web page with all of the tests run? I'd like to 
know what other networking tests have been run. Only this one was 
flagged, so I presume it means other tests did not hit the threshold. I 
would like to know what other tests are run.


Thanks,
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-23 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 7:33 PM, Huang Ying wrote:

Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
commits?




I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?

With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between 
8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?


Thanks,
David

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-23 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 7:33 PM, Huang Ying wrote:

Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
commits?




I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?

With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between 
8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?


Thanks,
David

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-23 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/23/15 6:37 PM, Huang Ying wrote:


I take it you have CONFIG_NET_VRF enabled. correct?

With it disabled I see no relevant change in performance between
8f58336d3f78 and 192132b9a034. Can you confirm?


The kconfig file is attached with the mail.  It appears that
CONFIG_NET_VRF is disabled.



Something is not adding up. I anticipate access to a multi-socket numa 
system in the next few days. Until then a couple of questions:


1. do you take patches to run your tests?

2. do you have a wiki/web page with all of the tests run? I'd like to 
know what other networking tests have been run. Only this one was 
flagged, so I presume it means other tests did not hit the threshold. I 
would like to know what other tests are run.


Thanks,
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 7:33 PM, Huang Ying wrote:

Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t
TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does
that
mean these 128 commands are run serially?


Sorry.  It's a script bug, there should be a "&" on the end.  Will fix
the script.


Ok.





Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
commits?


Sure.  It is attached with the mail.


Thank you.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread Huang Ying 
On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 19:19 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/20/15 6:30 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git 
> > master
> > commit 192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b ("net: Add support
> > for VRFs to inetpeer cache")
> > 
> > 
> > ===
> > ==
> > tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtim
> > e/nr_threads/cluster/test:
> >lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc
> > -4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR
> > 
> > commit:
> >5345c2e12d41f815c1009c9dee72f3d5fcfd4282
> >192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b
> > 
> 
> Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t 
> TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does
> that 
> mean these 128 commands are run serially?

Sorry.  It's a script bug, there should be a "&" on the end.  Will fix
the script.

> 
> Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
> adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to 
> 192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it 
> possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
> commits?

Sure.  It is attached with the mail.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtime/nr_threads/cluster/test:
  
lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc-4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR

commit: 
  8f58336d3f78aef61c8023c18546155f5fdf3224
  192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b

8f58336d3f78aef6 192132b9a034d87566294be0fb 
 -- 
 %stddev %change %stddev
 \  |\  
  2825 ±  2% -17.0%   2344 ±  1%  netperf.Throughput_tps
 1.089e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   90493497 ±  1%  
netperf.time.involuntary_context_switches
 1.086e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90186076 ±  1%  netperf.time.minor_page_faults
  4599 ±  0% +10.1%   5062 ±  1%  
netperf.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
 13112 ±  0% +12.0%  14686 ±  1%  netperf.time.system_time
940.67 ±  2% -16.9% 781.88 ±  1%  netperf.time.user_time
 1.085e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90055371 ±  1%  
netperf.time.voluntary_context_switches
 4.342e+08 ±  2% -17.0%  3.604e+08 ±  1%  softirqs.NET_RX
  2258 ±  1% +10.4%   2494 ±  4%  uptime.idle
320.54 ±  0%  -2.4% 312.95 ±  0%  turbostat.CorWatt
376.48 ±  0%  -2.0% 368.88 ±  0%  turbostat.PkgWatt
   1420157 ±  2% -16.9%1180769 ±  1%  vmstat.system.cs
 68961 ±  0%  +1.0%  69635 ±  0%  vmstat.system.in
  18193082 ± 11% -14.3%   15594591 ± 16%  cpuidle.C1-SNB.time
   3054463 ± 16% +45.0%4428730 ± 19%  cpuidle.C1E-SNB.time
238.50 ± 29%   +5507.2%  13373 ± 83%  cpuidle.C6-SNB.time
 1.119e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   93008884 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.numa_hit
 1.119e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   93008682 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.numa_local
   6365197 ±  2% -18.4%5191906 ±  2%  proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma32
  1.07e+08 ±  2% -16.6%   89162443 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
 1.095e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   91044527 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgfault
 1.133e+08 ±  2% -16.7%   94305253 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgfree
 1.089e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   90493497 ±  1%  time.involuntary_context_switches
 1.086e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90186076 ±  1%  time.minor_page_faults
  4599 ±  0% +10.1%   5062 ±  1%  time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
 13112 ±  0% +12.0%  14686 ±  1%  time.system_time
940.67 ±  2% -16.9% 781.88 ±  1%  time.user_time
 1.085e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90055371 ±  1%  time.voluntary_context_switches
  28168329 ±  1% -17.9%   23130696 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node0.local_node
  28168412 ±  1% -17.9%   23130763 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
  28038183 ±  3% -15.4%   23732122 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node1.local_node
  28038223 ±  3% -15.4%   23732168 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
  27687321 ±  2% -17.1%   22948672 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node2.local_node
  27687946 ±  2% -17.1%   22948710 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node2.numa_hit
  27979864 ±  2% -17.1%   23200094 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node3.local_node
  27980945 ±  2% -17.1%   23200610 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node3.numa_hit
  1080 ± 93% -52.3% 515.75 ±157%  numa-numastat.node3.other_node
 90608 ±  2% -11.3%  80327 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.active_objs
  1783 ±  2% -11.3%   1581 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.active_slabs
 90950 ±  2% -11.3%  80684 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.num_objs
  1783 ±  2% -11.3%   1581 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.num_slabs
 45161 ±  4% -27.4%  32776 ±

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 6:30 AM, kernel test robot wrote:

FYI, we noticed the below changes on

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
commit 192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b ("net: Add support for VRFs to 
inetpeer cache")


=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtime/nr_threads/cluster/test:
   
lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc-4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR

commit:
   5345c2e12d41f815c1009c9dee72f3d5fcfd4282
   192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b



Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t 
TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does that 
mean these 128 commands are run serially?


Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then 
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to 
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it 
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2 commits?


Thanks,
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread Huang Ying 
On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 19:19 -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 9/20/15 6:30 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
> > FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> > 
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git 
> > master
> > commit 192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b ("net: Add support
> > for VRFs to inetpeer cache")
> > 
> > 
> > ===
> > ==
> > tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtim
> > e/nr_threads/cluster/test:
> >lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc
> > -4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR
> > 
> > commit:
> >5345c2e12d41f815c1009c9dee72f3d5fcfd4282
> >192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b
> > 
> 
> Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t 
> TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does
> that 
> mean these 128 commands are run serially?

Sorry.  It's a script bug, there should be a "&" on the end.  Will fix
the script.

> 
> Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
> adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to 
> 192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it 
> possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
> commits?

Sure.  It is attached with the mail.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtime/nr_threads/cluster/test:
  
lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc-4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR

commit: 
  8f58336d3f78aef61c8023c18546155f5fdf3224
  192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b

8f58336d3f78aef6 192132b9a034d87566294be0fb 
 -- 
 %stddev %change %stddev
 \  |\  
  2825 ±  2% -17.0%   2344 ±  1%  netperf.Throughput_tps
 1.089e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   90493497 ±  1%  
netperf.time.involuntary_context_switches
 1.086e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90186076 ±  1%  netperf.time.minor_page_faults
  4599 ±  0% +10.1%   5062 ±  1%  
netperf.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
 13112 ±  0% +12.0%  14686 ±  1%  netperf.time.system_time
940.67 ±  2% -16.9% 781.88 ±  1%  netperf.time.user_time
 1.085e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90055371 ±  1%  
netperf.time.voluntary_context_switches
 4.342e+08 ±  2% -17.0%  3.604e+08 ±  1%  softirqs.NET_RX
  2258 ±  1% +10.4%   2494 ±  4%  uptime.idle
320.54 ±  0%  -2.4% 312.95 ±  0%  turbostat.CorWatt
376.48 ±  0%  -2.0% 368.88 ±  0%  turbostat.PkgWatt
   1420157 ±  2% -16.9%1180769 ±  1%  vmstat.system.cs
 68961 ±  0%  +1.0%  69635 ±  0%  vmstat.system.in
  18193082 ± 11% -14.3%   15594591 ± 16%  cpuidle.C1-SNB.time
   3054463 ± 16% +45.0%4428730 ± 19%  cpuidle.C1E-SNB.time
238.50 ± 29%   +5507.2%  13373 ± 83%  cpuidle.C6-SNB.time
 1.119e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   93008884 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.numa_hit
 1.119e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   93008682 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.numa_local
   6365197 ±  2% -18.4%5191906 ±  2%  proc-vmstat.pgalloc_dma32
  1.07e+08 ±  2% -16.6%   89162443 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
 1.095e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   91044527 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgfault
 1.133e+08 ±  2% -16.7%   94305253 ±  1%  proc-vmstat.pgfree
 1.089e+08 ±  2% -16.9%   90493497 ±  1%  time.involuntary_context_switches
 1.086e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90186076 ±  1%  time.minor_page_faults
  4599 ±  0% +10.1%   5062 ±  1%  time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
 13112 ±  0% +12.0%  14686 ±  1%  time.system_time
940.67 ±  2% -16.9% 781.88 ±  1%  time.user_time
 1.085e+08 ±  2% -17.0%   90055371 ±  1%  time.voluntary_context_switches
  28168329 ±  1% -17.9%   23130696 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node0.local_node
  28168412 ±  1% -17.9%   23130763 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
  28038183 ±  3% -15.4%   23732122 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node1.local_node
  28038223 ±  3% -15.4%   23732168 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
  27687321 ±  2% -17.1%   22948672 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node2.local_node
  27687946 ±  2% -17.1%   22948710 ±  2%  numa-numastat.node2.numa_hit
  27979864 ±  2% -17.1%   23200094 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node3.local_node
  27980945 ±  2% -17.1%   23200610 ±  1%  numa-numastat.node3.numa_hit
  1080 ± 93% -52.3% 515.75 ±157%  numa-numastat.node3.other_node
 90608 ±  2% -11.3%  80327 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.active_objs
  1783 ±  2% -11.3%   1581 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.active_slabs
 90950 ±  2% -11.3%  80684 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.num_objs
  1783 ±  2% -11.3%   1581 ±  1%  slabinfo.Acpi-State.num_slabs
 45161 ±  4% -27.4%  32776 ±

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 6:30 AM, kernel test robot wrote:

FYI, we noticed the below changes on

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
commit 192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b ("net: Add support for VRFs to 
inetpeer cache")


=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/cpufreq_governor/runtime/nr_threads/cluster/test:
   
lkp-sbx04/netperf/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/x86_64-rhel/gcc-4.9/performance/300s/200%/cs-localhost/TCP_CRR

commit:
   5345c2e12d41f815c1009c9dee72f3d5fcfd4282
   192132b9a034d87566294be0fba5f8f75c2cf16b



Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t 
TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does that 
mean these 128 commands are run serially?


Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then 
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to 
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it 
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2 commits?


Thanks,
David
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [lkp] [net] 192132b9a0: -17.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

2015-09-20 Thread David Ahern 

On 9/20/15 7:33 PM, Huang Ying wrote:

Clarification: The reproduce file shows 128 instances of 'netperf -t
TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300 -H 127.0.0.1' without an '&' on the end. Does
that
mean these 128 commands are run serially?


Sorry.  It's a script bug, there should be a "&" on the end.  Will fix
the script.


Ok.





Also, this is the end patch of a series that first refactors and then
adds a capability. The more relevant comparison is 8f58336d3f78 to
192132b9a034 (8f58336d3f78 is the commit before the series). Is it
possible to get this test run on your system comparing those 2
commits?


Sure.  It is attached with the mail.


Thank you.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/