* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
@ 2020-04-21 3:00 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-21 9:53 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
` (8 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: yu.ma at intel dot com @ 2020-04-21 3:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
yu.ma at intel dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|normal |critical
Target| |clearlinux
Host| |cascade lake
Build| |32580
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-21 3:00 ` [Bug libc/25860] " yu.ma at intel dot com
@ 2020-04-21 9:53 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
2020-04-21 9:54 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
` (7 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fw at deneb dot enyo.de @ 2020-04-21 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Flags| |security-
CC| |fw at deneb dot enyo.de
Last reconfirmed| |2020-04-21
--- Comment #1 from Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo.de> ---
I do not think there have been any tsearch changes between the two versions.
Have you discussed this with the Clear Linux developers?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-21 3:00 ` [Bug libc/25860] " yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-21 9:53 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
@ 2020-04-21 9:54 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
2020-04-28 6:15 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
` (6 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fw at deneb dot enyo.de @ 2020-04-21 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Severity|critical |normal
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-21 9:54 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
@ 2020-04-28 6:15 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-28 13:04 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: yu.ma at intel dot com @ 2020-04-28 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
--- Comment #2 from yu.ma at intel dot com ---
we verified it is not related to clear linux local patches as for the
regression point, there is no local patches merged, only change is glibc
upstream upgrade...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-28 6:15 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
@ 2020-04-28 13:04 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2020-04-29 0:40 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
` (4 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2020-04-28 13:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot o
| |rg
--- Comment #3 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
The stress-ng from phoronix-test-suite has multiple options that stress
different implementations:
Stress-NG 0.11.07:
pts/stress-ng-1.3.0
System Test Configuration
1: CPU Stress
2: Crypto
3: Memory Copying
4: Glibc Qsort Data Sorting
5: Glibc C String Functions
6: Vector Math
7: Matrix Math
8: Forking
9: System V Message Passing
10: Semaphores
11: Socket Activity
12: Context Switching
13: Atomic
14: CPU Cache
15: Malloc
16: MEMFD
17: MMAP
18: NUMA
19: RdRand
20: SENDFILE
Which one are you seeing regressions and with a profiling which glibc symbols
does it stress?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-28 13:04 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2020-04-29 0:40 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-04-29 16:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: yu.ma at intel dot com @ 2020-04-29 0:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
--- Comment #4 from yu.ma at intel dot com ---
it is stress-ng-1.2.2 sub Test: Tsearch unit:Bogo Ops/s
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-29 0:40 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
@ 2020-04-29 16:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
2020-04-30 5:41 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2020-04-29 16:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
--- Comment #5 from Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> ---
Assuming you are evaluating with default phronix testsuite options (-t 30
--metrics-brief --cpu 0 --tsearch 0) it seems an issue with scheduling pressure
in fact. On 2.29 running 3 times I see different results:
stress-ng: info: [386425] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [386425] successful run completed in 30.08s
stress-ng: info: [386425] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [386425] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [386425] cpu 30473 30.02 115.61
0.01 1014.98 263.56
stress-ng: info: [386425] tsearch 1614 30.03 117.01
0.00 53.75 13.79
stress-ng: info: [390680] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [390680] successful run completed in 30.10s
stress-ng: info: [390680] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [390680] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [390680] cpu 31081 30.04 118.73
0.00 1034.82 261.78
stress-ng: info: [390680] tsearch 1747 30.03 118.68
0.10 58.18 14.71
stress-ng: info: [390726] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [390726] successful run completed in 30.06s
stress-ng: info: [390726] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [390726] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [390726] cpu 31284 30.02 118.59
0.01 1042.11 263.78
stress-ng: info: [390726] tsearch 1668 30.02 118.49
0.08 55.55 14.07
And binding with --taskset 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7, the resulting seems more
predictable:
stress-ng: info: [391052] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [391052] successful run completed in 30.07s
stress-ng: info: [391052] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [391052] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [391052] cpu 31143 30.02 118.17
0.03 1037.31 263.48
stress-ng: info: [391052] tsearch 1700 30.03 118.58
0.05 56.62 14.33
stress-ng: info: [391102] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [391102] successful run completed in 30.09s
stress-ng: info: [391102] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [391102] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [391102] cpu 30881 30.03 117.65
0.06 1028.19 262.35
stress-ng: info: [391102] tsearch 1698 30.03 118.87
0.07 56.55 14.28
And using the same options with biding on 2.30 shows no significant performance
difference:
stress-ng: info: [391146] dispatching hogs: 8 cpu, 8 tsearch
stress-ng: info: [391146] successful run completed in 30.09s
stress-ng: info: [391146] stressor bogo ops real time usr time sys
time bogo ops/s bogo ops/s
stress-ng: info: [391146] (secs) (secs) (secs)
(real time) (usr+sys time)
stress-ng: info: [391146] cpu 31133 30.04 118.06
0.04 1036.39 263.62
stress-ng: info: [391146] tsearch 1735 30.05 119.09
0.11 57.74 14.56
And profiling does not show any significant output difference:
x86_64-linux-gnu-2.29$ perf report --stdio -d libc.so
[...]
# Overhead Command Symbol
# ........ ............... .................................
#
10.88% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tfind
10.58% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tdelete
7.31% stress-ng-tsear [.] maybe_split_for_insert.isra.0
5.70% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tsearch
x86_64-linux-gnu-2.30$ perf report --stdio -d libc.so
[...]
# Overhead Command Symbol
# ........ ............... .................................
#
10.90% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tfind
10.52% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tdelete
7.38% stress-ng-tsear [.] maybe_split_for_insert.isra.0
5.81% stress-ng-tsear [.] __tsearch
I don't think there is a regression here.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-29 16:23 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
@ 2020-04-30 5:41 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
2020-05-04 6:56 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
2023-10-31 17:40 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: yu.ma at intel dot com @ 2020-04-30 5:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
--- Comment #6 from yu.ma at intel dot com ---
here is the default command of tsearch in PTS, not binding with any CPU set:
./stress-ng-clr -t 30 --metrics-brief --tsearch 0
and it will initiate as many threads as cpu total numbers
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2020-04-30 5:41 ` yu.ma at intel dot com
@ 2020-05-04 6:56 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
2023-10-31 17:40 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: fw at deneb dot enyo.de @ 2020-05-04 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
--- Comment #7 from Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo.de> ---
Again, we did not change tsearch at all between the two releases.
Have you verified that the changed performance is not the result of instruction
alignment differences?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread* [Bug libc/25860] stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30
2020-04-21 2:59 [Bug libc/25860] New: stress-ng tsearch regressed ~14% with upgrade glibc from 2.29 to 2.30 yu.ma at intel dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2020-05-04 6:56 ` fw at deneb dot enyo.de
@ 2023-10-31 17:40 ` adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org
9 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org @ 2023-10-31 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: glibc-bugs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25860
Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval.zanella at linaro dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread