| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1221306287.5213.111.camel@marge.simson.net> Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 13:44:47 +0200 From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de> To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [Bug #11308] tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 17:05 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of recent regressions. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > from 2.6.26. Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know > > (either way). > > > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11308 > > Subject : tbench regression on each kernel release from 2.6.22 -> 2.6.28 > > Submitter : Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org> > > Date : 2008-08-11 18:36 (33 days old) > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121847986119495&w=4 > > > > > > > > tbench > > 2.6.27-rc6 2760 MB/sec > 2.6.22 3235.47 MB/sec Numbers from my Q6600 Aldi supermarket box (hm, your box is from different shelf) tbench -t 60 4 localhost followed by 4 60s netperf TCP_RR pairs, each pair jabbering on a separate port and affine to a separate CPU. Configs are as close as I can make them, all kernels built and tested today by identical userland. 2.6.22.19 Throughput 1136.02 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 94179.12 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 88780.61 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 91057.72 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 94242.16 2.6.22.19-cfs-v24.1 (identical config) Throughput 1126.79 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 88809.14 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 89971.25 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 89452.91 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 89478.63 2.6.23.17 Throughput 1073.2 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 83635.61 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 82754.36 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84594.59 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 82995.81 2.6.23.17-cfs-v24.1 (identical config) Throughput 1145.28 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 90278.55 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 90579.31 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 89412.14 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 90270.97 2.6.24.7 Throughput 1119.28 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84092.78 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84120.68 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84076.73 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 83995.07 2.6.25.17 Throughput 1113.82 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84629.98 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84776.38 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84356.49 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84469.71 2.6.26.5 Throughput 1095.26 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84481.11 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 84604.38 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 86526.84 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 84478.01 2.6.27-rc6 Throughput 1037.98 MB/sec 4 procs 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 80293.80 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 80266.60 16384 87380 1 1 60.00 80394.83 16384 87380 1 1 60.01 80397.27 I spent two weeks chasing various and sundry netperf numbers recently, only learning in the process that netperf is _utterly immune_ to bisection. Tbench numbers don't look promising for bisection from here. Note to quixotic self: destroy log immediately lest you be tempted. -Mike -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists