linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the itimer regression (BZ 12618)

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: <20090211131156.GN16535@elte.hu>
Date:	Wed, 11 Feb 2009 14:11:56 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com>, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com" <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix the itimer regression (BZ 12618)


* Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 22:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 23:18 +0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > * Zhang, Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 13:06 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This should hopefully address all the itimer borkage.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Applied to tip:timers/urgent, thanks Peter!
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yanmin: could you check hacbench_pth with latest tip/master, do
> > > > > > these fixes resolve that 3% regression you reported?
> > > > >
> > > > > Lin Ming tested it and hackbench_pth/volanoMark regression all disappear. 
> > > > > But oltp has a regression. We think oltp new regression isn't related to 
> > > > > the patch. Ming is investigating it.
> > > > 
> > > > Potential suspects for oltp regression would be:
> > > > 
> > > >  3d39870: sched_rt: don't use first_cpu on cpumask created with cpumask_and
> > > >  a571bbe: sched: fix buddie group latency
> > > >  a9f3e2b: sched: clear buddies more aggressively
> > > >  1596e29: sched: symmetric sync vs avg_overlap
> > > >  d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups
> > > 
> > > I tested the latest tip-master branch.
> > > After reverting "d942fb6: sched: fix sync wakeups", the oltp regression
> > > on the 8cores Stockley machine is mostly fixed.
> > > 
> > > On another 4*4 cores Tigerton machine, oltp has more than 10% regression
> > > with 2.6.29-rc4 compared with 2.6.29-rc3.
> > 
> > ok, that commit needs fixed or reverted. Peter, Mike?
> 
> Yanmin, is that tigerton regression also due to the sync changes?
> 
> That is, if you revert both d942fb6 and 1596e29, does it get back to
> -rc3 state, or is the tigerton regression due to something else?
> 
> This isn't quite clear to me.
> 
> Ingo, if that is the case, I'm fine with reverting those changes for
> now, and have another look at them later on -- preferably when someone
> ships me a 4*4 machine so I can validate :-)

Could you please send a changelogged minimal reverter patch with Reported-by
and Bisected-by tags in place, etc? It does not have to be a full revert,
if you think we can do with less that's fine too.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/