linux-kernel - Re: aim7 -30% regression in 2.6.24-rc1

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:23:07 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: aim7 -30% regression in 2.6.24-rc1


* Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> I tested 2.6.24-rc1 on my x86_64 machine which has 2 quad-core processors.
> 
> Comparing with 2.6.23, aim7 has about -30% regression. I did a bisect 
> and found patch 
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=b5869ce7f68b233ceb81465a7644be0d9a5f3dbb 
> caused the issue.

weird, that's a commit diff - i.e. it changes no code.

> kbuild/SPECjbb2000/SPECjbb2005 also has big regressions. On my another 
> tigerton machine (4 quad-core processors), SPECjbb2005 has more than 
> -40% regression. I didn't do a bisect on such benchmark testing, but I 
> suspect the root cause is like aim7's.

these two commits might be relevant:

  7a6c6bcee029a978f866511d6e41dbc7301fde4c
  95dbb421d12fdd9796ed153853daf3679809274f

but a bisection result would be the best info.

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