| 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 07:33:53 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [iversion] c0cef30e4f: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.0%
regression
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 06:43 -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 16:38 +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> > 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 for retesting it, but I'm at a loss for why we're seeing this:
>
> IMA is the the integrity management subsystem. It will use the iversion
> field to determine whether to remeasure files during remeasurement. It
> looks like the kernel config has it enabled, but it doesn't look like
> it's in use, based on the info in the initial report.
>
> This patch only affects two inlined functions inode_cmp_iversion and
> inode_cmp_iversion_raw. The patch is pretty trivial (as Linus points
> out). These functions are only called from IMA and fs-specific code
> (usually in readdir implementations to detect directory changes).
>
> XFS does not call either of these functions however, so I'm a little
> unclear on how this patch could slow anything down on this test. The
> only thing I can think to do here would be to profile this and see what
> stands out.
>
> Note that we do need to keep this in perspective too. This 18%
> regression on this test follows around a ~230% improvement that occurred
> when we merged the bulk of these patches. It's should still be quite a
> bit faster than the v4.15 in this regard.
>
> Still, it'd be good to understand what's going on here.
>
>
Could we see the dmesg from this boot? It'd be good to confirm that IMA
is not involved here, as that's the only place that I can see that would
call into this code at all here.
Thanks,
Jeff
> > 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>
>
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists