On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:50:39 +0100
Petr Tesarik [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:19:34 +0000
Ryan Roberts [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 12/11/2024 09:45, Petr Tesarik wrote:  

quoted

On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 12:25:35 +0000
Ryan Roberts [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

Hi Petr,

On 11/11/2024 12:14, Petr Tesarik wrote:    

quoted

Hi Ryan,

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 13:32:43 +0100
Ryan Roberts [off-list ref] wrote:    

[...]    

quoted

Third, a few micro-benchmarks saw a significant regression.

Most notably, getenv and getenvT2 tests from libMicro were 18% and 20%
slower with variable page size. I don't know why, but I'm looking into
it. The system() library call was also about 18% slower, but that might
be related.      

OK, ouch. I think there are some things we can try to optimize the
implementation further. But I'll wait for your analysis before digging myself.    

This turned out to be a false positive. The way this microbenchmark was
invoked did not get enough samples, so it was mostly dependent on
whether caches were hot or cold, and the timing on this specific system
with the specific sequence of bencnmarks in the suite happens to favour
my baseline kernel.

After increasing the batch count, I'm getting pretty much the same
performance for 6.11 vanilla and patched kernels:

                        prc thr   usecs/call      samples   errors cnt/samp 
getenv (baseline)         1   1      0.14975           99        0   100000 
getenv (patched)          1   1      0.14981           92        0   100000     

Oh that's good news! Does this account for all 3 of the above tests (getenv,
getenvT2 and system())?  

It does for getenvT2 (a variant of the test with 2 threads), but not
for system. Thanks for asking, I forgot about that one.

I'm getting substantial difference there (+29% on average over 100 runs):

                        prc thr   usecs/call      samples   errors cnt/samp  command
system (baseline)         1   1   6937.18016          102        0      100     A=$$
system (patched)          1   1   8959.48032          102        0      100     A=$$

So, yeah, this should in fact be my priority #1.

Further testing reveals the workload is bimodal, that is to say the
distribution of results has two peaks. The first peak around 3.2 ms
covers 30% runs, the second peak around 15.7 ms covers 11%. Two per
cent are faster than the fast peak, 5% are slower than slow peak, the
rest is distributed almost evenly between them.

100 samples were not sufficient to see this distribution, and it was
mere bad luck that only the patched kernel originally reported bad
results. I can now see bad results even with the unpatched kernel.

In short, I don't think there is a difference in system() performance.

I will still have a look at dup() and VMA performance, but so far it
all looks good to me. Good job! ;-)

I will also try running a more complete set of benchmarks during next
week. That's SUSE Hack Week, and I want to make a PoC for the MM
changes I proposed at LPC24, so I won't need this Ampere system for
interactive use.

Petr T