linux-kernel - Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23

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: <20090911061024.GA27833@elte.hu>
Date:	Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:10:24 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru>
Cc:	Con Kolivas <kernel@...ivas.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
Subject: Re: Epic regression in throughput since v2.6.23


* Serge Belyshev <belyshev@...ni.sinp.msu.ru> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> 
> >    perf stat --repeat 3 make -j4 bzImage
> 
> BFS hangs here:
> 
> [  128.859000] BUG: soft lockup - CPU#2 stuck for 61s! [sh:7946]
> [  128.859016] Modules linked in:
> [  128.859016] CPU 2:
> [  128.859016] Modules linked in:
> [  128.859016] Pid: 7946, comm: sh Not tainted 2.6.31-bfs211-dirty #4 GA-MA790FX-DQ6
> [  128.859016] RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff81055a52>]  [<ffffffff81055a52>] task_oncpu_function_call+0x22/0x40
> [  128.859016] RSP: 0018:ffff880205967e18  EFLAGS: 00000246
> [  128.859016] RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: ffff880205964cc0 RCX: 000000000000dd00
> [  128.859016] RDX: ffff880211138c00 RSI: ffffffff8108d3f0 RDI: ffff88022e42a100
> [  128.859016] RBP: ffffffff8102d76e R08: ffff880028066000 R09: 0000000000000000
> [  128.859016] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000058 R12: ffffffff8108d3f0
> [  128.859016] R13: ffff880211138c00 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 000000000000e260
> [  128.859016] FS:  00002b9ba0924e00(0000) GS:ffff880028066000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> [  128.859016] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
> [  128.859016] CR2: 00002b9ba091e4a8 CR3: 0000000001001000 CR4: 00000000000006e0
> [  128.859016] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> [  128.859016] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> [  128.859016] Call Trace:
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff8108ee3b>] ? perf_counter_remove_from_context+0x3b/0x90
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff810904b4>] ? perf_counter_exit_task+0x114/0x340
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff810c3f66>] ? filp_close+0x56/0x90
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff8105d3ac>] ? do_exit+0x14c/0x6f0
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff8105d991>] ? do_group_exit+0x41/0xb0
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff8105da12>] ? sys_exit_group+0x12/0x20
> [  128.859016]  [<ffffffff8102cceb>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> 
> So, got nothing to compare with.

Could still compare -j5 to -j4 on -tip, to see why -j4 is 3% short 
of -j5's throughput.

(Plus maybe the NEW_FAIR_SLEEPERS change in -tip fixes the 3% drop.)

	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/