linux-kernel - Re: [performance bug] volanomark regression on 37-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:	Wed, 17 Nov 2010 08:23:57 +0800
From:	"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
To:	Rakib Mullick <rakib.mullick@...il.com>
Cc:	"ncrao@...gle.com" <ncrao@...gle.com>,
	"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	"mingo@...e.hu" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
	"Yan, Zheng Z" <zheng.z.yan@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [performance bug] volanomark regression on 37-rc1

On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 22:38 +0800, Rakib Mullick wrote:
> On 11/16/10, Alex,Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
> > When do performance testing on 37-rc1 kernel on Core2 machines, we find
> > the volanomark loopback performance drop about 30%, that due to
> > commit:fab476228ba37907ad7
> >
> Was that test was made before and after applying above commit? Would
> love to know, how did you find that commit (I mean was it a git
> bisection)?
Yes, git bisect found this commit. 

> >
> > It seems some of load_balance() is not necessary that caused by avg_idle
> > setting. But do not know more details of the volano running. Anyone like
> > to give a comments for this issue?
> >
> Does VolanoMark is used for scheduler benchmarking? If I'm not wrong,
> I don't think it directly relates to scheduler benchmarking.
Yes, but lots of benchmarks often find other part kernel issues. like
hackbench/netperf often find VM performance issues. And an our cache
testing tool often find scheduler problem. 
> 
> > Ncrao, I have no idea of your benchmarks, but just guess removing the
> > avg_idle setting won't bring much wakeup delay for tasks. Could you like
> > to show some data of this?
> >
> > The vmstat output for .36 and .37-rc1 kernel as below:
> 
> You are showing the output of .36 and .37-rc1. If Ncrao's commit is
> guilty for this performance regression, then what are the results of
> before and after applied Ncrao's commit. Then, what are the result
> after applying your patch. You are showing vmstat output of .36 and
> .37-rc1, which really doesn't prove the point of your patch. It needs
> to be more clearer.
The vmstat for .36 represents original kernel, .37-rc1 represent with
the Ncrao's patch.
> 
> 
> thanks,
> rakib
> 
> 
> > Regards
> > Alex
> >
> > --
> > 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/
> >


--
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/