linux-kernel - Re: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-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]

Message-ID: <20080508053216.GA32729@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Thu, 8 May 2008 11:02:16 +0530
From:	Dhaval Giani <dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Aneesh Kumar KV <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: volanoMark regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1

On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 01:18:34PM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 23:03 +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 05:22:07PM +0530, Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 06, 2008 at 10:06:30AM +0800, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > > Comparing with 2.6.25, volanoMark has big regression with kernel 2.6.26-rc1.
> > > > It's about 50% on my 8-core stoakley, 16-core tigerton, and Itanium Montecito.
> > > > 
> > > > With bisect, I located below patch.
> > > > 
> > > > 18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e is first bad commit
> > > > commit 18d95a2832c1392a2d63227a7a6d433cb9f2037e
> > > > Author: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> > > > Date:   Sat Apr 19 19:45:00 2008 +0200
> > > > 
> > > >     sched: fair-group: SMP-nice for group scheduling
> > > >     
> > > >     Implement SMP nice support for the full group hierarchy.
> > > > 
> > > > If I reverse the patch with resolving some conflictions, volanoMark result could
> > > > be restored completely.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > ok, that's bad. Let's get vatsa and Ingo also involved.
> > > 
> > 
> > Just to confirm, do you still have a performance regression with
> > !group_sched?
> I just tried it with CONFIG_GROUP_SCHED=n a moment ago. The regression becomes less than 3%.
> 

Hmm. On another machine I am seeing a 10% regression, with and without
group sched. Let us work on fixing this one.

-- 
regards,
Dhaval
--
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/