Hi, On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 09:31:20AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 01:58:33PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > > FYI, we noticed the below changes on > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git sched/core > > commit 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f0c175995a02950 ("sched/core: Rework > > rq->clock update skips") > > > > > > testbox/testcase/testparams: xps2/hackbench/performance-1600%-process-socket > > > > cebde6d681aa45f9 9edfbfed3f544a7830d99b341f > > ---------------- -------------------------- > > %stddev %change %stddev > > \ | \ > > 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% > > hackbench.time.involuntary_context_switches > > 41965851 ± 5% +5.6% 44307403 ± 1% > > hackbench.time.voluntary_context_switches > > 388 ± 39% -58.6% 160 ± 10% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.tg_load_contrib > > 12957 ± 14% -60.5% 5117 ± 11% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_avg > > 30505 ± 14% -57.7% 12905 ± 6% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_avg > > 2790 ± 24% -65.4% 964 ± 32% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.blocked_load_avg > > 2915 ± 23% -62.2% 1101 ± 29% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[3]:/.tg_load_contrib > > 1839273 ± 6% +88.2% 3462337 ± 4% > > time.involuntary_context_switches > > 1474 ± 28% -61.7% 565 ± 43% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[2]:/.tg_load_contrib > > 11830 ± 15% +63.0% 19285 ± 11% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_goidle > > 19319 ± 29% +91.1% 36913 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#3.sched_goidle > > 5899 ± 31% -35.6% 3801 ± 11% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.blocked_load_avg > > 5999 ± 30% -34.5% 3929 ± 11% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_contrib > > 37884 ± 13% -33.5% 25207 ± 7% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[4]:/.tg_load_avg > > 229547 ± 5% +47.9% 339519 ± 5% cpuidle.C1-NHM.usage > > 35712 ± 3% +31.7% 47036 ± 9% cpuidle.C3-NHM.usage > > 5010 ± 9% -29.0% 3556 ± 20% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.blocked_load_avg > > 5139 ± 9% -28.2% 3690 ± 19% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.tg_load_contrib > > 49568 ± 6% +24.8% 61867 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.sched_goidle > > 26369 ± 35% -42.0% 15289 ± 29% cpuidle.C6-NHM.usage > > 18 ± 16% +36.5% 25 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_running > > 1.41 ± 12% -19.3% 1.14 ± 13% > > perf-profile.cpu-cycles.sock_wfree.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb > > 25 ± 15% +28.7% 32 ± 9% sched_debug.cpu#3.nr_running > > 1.63 ± 11% -18.0% 1.34 ± 12% > > perf-profile.cpu-cycles.unix_destruct_scm.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg > > 0.57 ± 8% +9.6% 0.62 ± 5% turbostat.CPU%c1 > > 148 ± 11% -16.7% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cfs_rq[1]:/.load > > 109 ± 6% +17.1% 128 ± 6% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[0] > > 2.41 ± 8% -13.3% 2.09 ± 11% > > perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_head_state.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read > > 147 ± 12% -16.4% 123 ± 7% sched_debug.cpu#1.load > > 111 ± 5% +15.4% 129 ± 5% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[2] > > 110 ± 5% +14.9% 127 ± 5% > > sched_debug.cfs_rq[6]:/.runnable_load_avg > > 112 ± 5% +14.5% 128 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[3] > > 113 ± 5% +13.2% 128 ± 3% sched_debug.cpu#6.cpu_load[4] > > 789953 ± 2% -10.8% 704528 ± 4% sched_debug.cpu#3.avg_idle > > 15471 ± 5% -7.7% 14278 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.curr->pid > > 2675106 ± 10% +16.2% 3109411 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.nr_switches > > 2675140 ± 10% +16.2% 3109440 ± 1% sched_debug.cpu#4.sched_count > > 155201 ± 5% +14.6% 177901 ± 3% softirqs.RCU > > 8.64 ± 6% -9.6% 7.82 ± 5% > > perf-profile.cpu-cycles.skb_release_all.consume_skb.unix_stream_recvmsg.sock_aio_read.sock_aio_read > > 2658351 ± 11% +13.7% 3021564 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.sched_count > > 2658326 ± 11% +13.7% 3021539 ± 2% sched_debug.cpu#5.nr_switches > > 71443 ± 5% +9.9% 78486 ± 0% vmstat.system.cs > > 8209 ± 5% +7.3% 8805 ± 0% vmstat.system.in > > > > OK, so the interesting number is total runtime; I cannot find it. > Therefore I cannot say what if anything changed. This is just a bunch of > random numbers afaict.
The total runtime of hackbench in v3.19 compared to v3.15 to v3.18 is shown here [1] (Group 5 -> linux_perf.hackbench). It is not the same project so the profiling data is not related and not recorded. The results should be reproducable by simply running hackbench with the same options as cbenchsuite [2] did. The options are always listed in the result browser [1] below the plots. Best Regards, Markus [1] http://results.cbenchsuite.org/plots/2015-02-09__v3.15-v3.19-quad/detailed/ [2] http://cbenchsuite.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature