| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:38:07 +0800
From: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [iversion] c0cef30e4f: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.0%
regression
On 02/25, Jeff Layton wrote:
>On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 23:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -18.0% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>
>> in testcase: aim7
>> on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz with 384G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>> disk: 4BRD_12G
>> md: RAID0
>> fs: xfs
>> test: disk_src
>> load: 3000
>> cpufreq_governor: performance
>>
>> test-description: AIM7 is a traditional UNIX system level benchmark suite which is used to test and measure the performance of multiuser system.
>> test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/aimbench/files/aim-suite7/
>>
>>
>
>I'm a bit suspicious of this result.
>
>This patch only changes inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} (since renamed to
>inode_eq_iversion{+raw}), and that neither should ever be called from
>xfs. The patch is fairly trivial too, and I wouldn't expect a big
>performance hit.
I tried to queue 4 more times test for both commit c0cef30e4f and its parent,
the result seems quite stable.
c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e:
"aim7.jobs-per-min": [
32964.01,
32938.68,
33068.18,
32886.32,
32843.72,
32798.83,
32898.34,
32952.55
],
3da90b159b146672f830bcd2489dd3a1f4e9e089:
"aim7.jobs-per-min": [
40239.65,
40163.33,
40353.32,
39976.9,
40185.75,
40411.3,
40213.58,
39900.69
],
Any other test data you may need?
>
>Is IMA involved here at all? I didn't see any evidence of it, but the
>kernel config did have it enabled.
>
Sorry, not quite familiar with IMA, could you tell more about how to check it?
Thanks,
Xiaolong
>
>>
>> Details are as below:
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
>>
>>
>> To reproduce:
>>
>> git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
>> cd lkp-tests
>> bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
>> bin/lkp run job.yaml
>>
>> =========================================================================================
>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/load/md/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>> gcc-7/performance/4BRD_12G/xfs/x86_64-rhel-7.2/3000/RAID0/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-ivb-ep01/disk_src/aim7
>>
>> commit:
>> 3da90b159b (" f2fs-for-4.16-rc1")
>> c0cef30e4f ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
>>
>> 3da90b159b146672 c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8
>> ---------------- --------------------------
>> %stddev %change %stddev
>> \ | \
>> 40183 -18.0% 32964 aim7.jobs-per-min
>> 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time
>> 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time.max
>> 5615 ± 5% +33.4% 7489 ± 4% aim7.time.involuntary_context_switches
>> 3086 +14.0% 3518 aim7.time.system_time
>> 19439782 -5.6% 18359474 aim7.time.voluntary_context_switches
>> 199333 +14.3% 227794 ± 2% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
>> 0.59 -0.1 0.50 mpstat.cpu.usr%
>> 2839401 +16.0% 3293688 softirqs.SCHED
>> 7600068 +15.1% 8747820 softirqs.TIMER
>> 118.00 ± 43% +98.7% 234.50 ± 15% vmstat.io.bo
>> 87840 -22.4% 68154 vmstat.system.cs
>> 552798 ± 6% +15.8% 640107 ± 4% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
>> 557345 ± 6% +15.7% 644666 ± 4% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
>> 528341 ± 7% +21.7% 642933 ± 4% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
>> 531604 ± 7% +21.6% 646209 ± 4% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
>> 2.147e+09 -12.4% 1.88e+09 cpuidle.C1.time
>> 13702041 -14.7% 11683737 cpuidle.C1.usage
>> 2.082e+08 ± 4% +28.1% 2.667e+08 ± 5% cpuidle.C1E.time
>> 4.719e+08 ± 2% +23.1% 5.807e+08 ± 4% cpuidle.C3.time
>> 1.141e+10 +31.0% 1.496e+10 cpuidle.C6.time
>> 15672622 +27.8% 20031028 cpuidle.C6.usage
>> 13520572 ± 3% +29.5% 17514398 ± 9% cpuidle.POLL.time
>> 278.25 ± 5% -46.0% 150.25 ± 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirtied
>> 3200 ± 14% -20.6% 2542 ± 19% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
>> 277.75 ± 5% -46.2% 149.50 ± 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_written
>> 28.50 ± 52% +448.2% 156.25 ± 70% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirtied
>> 2577 ± 19% +26.3% 3255 ± 15% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_mapped
>> 634338 ± 4% +7.8% 683959 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
>> 457411 ± 6% +10.8% 506800 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
>> 3734 ± 8% -11.5% 3306 ± 6% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
>> 1114538 +18.3% 1318978 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
>> 1106722 +18.5% 1311136 proc-vmstat.numa_local
>> 22100 +7.5% 23753 ± 4% proc-vmstat.numa_pages_migrated
>> 1174556 +18.0% 1386359 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
>> 1241445 +18.1% 1466086 proc-vmstat.pgfault
>> 1138310 +19.3% 1358132 proc-vmstat.pgfree
>> 22100 +7.5% 23753 ± 4% proc-vmstat.pgmigrate_success
>> 53332 ± 43% +143.0% 129617 ± 14% proc-vmstat.pgpgout
>> 1.42 ± 2% +1.7 3.07 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
>> 1.064e+10 +123.3% 2.375e+10 perf-stat.branch-misses
>> 10.79 +0.6 11.43 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
>> 5.583e+09 +5.9% 5.915e+09 perf-stat.cache-misses
>> 39652092 -5.0% 37662545 perf-stat.context-switches
>> 1.29 +11.7% 1.44 perf-stat.cpi
>> 4.637e+12 +12.8% 5.23e+12 perf-stat.cpu-cycles
>> 8.653e+11 +9.8% 9.498e+11 ± 2% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
>> 3.654e+11 +12.4% 4.109e+11 perf-stat.dTLB-stores
>> 0.78 -10.5% 0.70 perf-stat.ipc
>> 1214932 +17.9% 1432266 perf-stat.minor-faults
>> 1.334e+09 -1.8% 1.31e+09 perf-stat.node-store-misses
>> 1.651e+09 -1.8% 1.62e+09 perf-stat.node-stores
>> 1214954 +17.9% 1432313 perf-stat.page-faults
>> 256.75 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Avg_MHz
>> 21.39 -21.4 0.00 turbostat.Busy%
>> 1200 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Bzy_MHz
>> 13695007 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1
>> 11.92 -11.9 0.00 turbostat.C1%
>> 2116683 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1E
>> 1.16 ± 4% -1.2 0.00 turbostat.C1E%
>> 3112269 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C3
>> 2.62 ± 2% -2.6 0.00 turbostat.C3%
>> 15671277 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C6
>> 63.38 -63.4 0.00 turbostat.C6%
>> 49.46 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c1
>> 1.42 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c3
>> 27.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c6
>> 31.41 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CorWatt
>> 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CoreTmp
>> 18919351 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.IRQ
>> 1.21 ± 18% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc2
>> 0.67 ± 31% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc6
>> 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgTmp
>> 57.63 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgWatt
>> 30.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.RAMWatt
>> 36030 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.SMI
>> 3000 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.TSC_MHz
>>
>>
>> aim7.jobs-per-min
>>
>> 41000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>> | ..+....+.... ..+....+....+.... ..+....+....+...+.... |
>> 40000 +-+ +. +.. + |
>> 39000 +-+ |
>> | |
>> 38000 +-+ |
>> 37000 +-+ |
>> | |
>> 36000 +-+ |
>> 35000 +-+ |
>> | |
>> 34000 +-+ |
>> 33000 +-+ O O |
>> O O O O O O O O O O O O O
>> 32000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
>>
>>
>>
>> [*] bisect-good sample
>> [O] bisect-bad sample
>>
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer:
>> Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
>> for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
>> design or configuration may affect actual performance.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xiaolong
>--
>Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists