linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [net] ceb5d58b21: -69.2% fsmark.files_per

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Dec 2015 08:58:17 +0800
From:	"Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:	<lkp@...org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [net] ceb5d58b21: -69.2% fsmark.files_per_sec

Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:49 PM, kernel test robot
> <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62 ("net: fix sock_wake_async() rcu protection")
>>
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/filesize/fs2/fs/iterations/kconfig/nr_threads/rootfs/sync_method/tbox_group/test_size/testcase:
>>   gcc-4.9/performance/1BRD_48G/4M/nfsv4/xfs/1x/x86_64-rhel/64t/debian-x86_64-2015-02-07.cgz/NoSync/lkp-hsx04/40G/fsmark
>>
>> commit:
>>   9cd3e072b0be17446e37d7414eac8a3499e0601e
>>   ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a2640f995032e62
>>
>> 9cd3e072b0be1744 ceb5d58b217098a657f3850b7a
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>
>> Thanks,
>> Ying Huang
>
> Hi Ying. I have no idea what these confusing numbers mean.
>
> Is your benchmark running faster (good thing) or slower (sorry, but we
> fixed a bug)

The benchmark running slower now.  This has big impact on performance,
maybe we can find some clue to optimize from the test result?  The
benchmark is about file IO performance on a loop back mounted NFS.

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
--
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/