On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 03:42:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Mel Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [...] > > > > At that point it'll be time to look at profiles and see where we are > > actually spending time because the possibilities of finding things > > to fix through bisection will be exhausted. > > Yeah. > > One (heavy handed but effective) trick that can be used in such a > situation is to just revert everything that is causing problems, and > continue reverting until we get back to a v3.4 baseline performance. >
Very tempted but the potential timeframe here is very large and the number of patches could be considerable. Some patches cause a lot of noise. For example, one patch enabled ACPI cpufreq driver loading which looks like a regression during that window but it's a side-effect that gets fixed later. It'll take time to identify all the patches that potentially cause problems. > Once such a 'clean' tree (or queue of patches) is achived, that can be > used as a measurement base and the individual features can be > re-applied again, one by one, with measurement and analysis becoming a > lot easier. > Ordinarily I would agree with you but would prefer a shorter window for that type of strategy. > > > Also it appears the Ebizzy numbers ought to be stable enough now > > > to make the range-TLB-flush measurements more precise? > > > > Right now, the tlbflush microbenchmark figures look awful on the > > 8-core machine when the tlbflush shift patch and the schedule domain > > fix are both applied. > > I think that furthr strengthens the case for the 'clean base' approach > I outlined above - but it's your call obviously ... > I'll keep it as plan b if it cannot be fixed with a direct approach. > Thanks again for going through all this. Tracking multi-commit > performance regressions across 1.5 years worth of commits is generally > very hard. Does your testing effort comes from enterprise Linux QA > testing, or did you ran into this problem accidentally? > It does not come from enterprise Linux QA testing but it's motivated by it. I want to catch as many "obvious" performance bugs before they do as it saves time and stress in the long run. To assist that, I setup continual performance regression testing and ebizzy was included in the first report I opened. It makes me worry what the rest of the reports contain. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
