linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to rwlock

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: <20131105034150.GJ30123@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Date:	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 11:41:50 +0800
From:	Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] per anon_vma lock and turn anon_vma rwsem lock to
 rwlock_t

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:03:12PM -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 17:44 -0800, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:59 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 08:15:13PM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:16 +0800, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:21:46AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > * Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Btw., another _really_ interesting comparison would be against 
> > > > > > > > the latest rwsem patches. Mind doing such a comparison?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Sure. Where can I get it? Are they on some git tree?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I've Cc:-ed Tim Chen who might be able to point you to the latest 
> > > > > > version.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The last on-lkml submission was in this thread:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   Subject: [PATCH v8 0/9] rwsem performance optimizations
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I queued bunchs of tests about one hour ago, and already got some
> > > > > results(If necessary, I can add more data tomorrow when those tests are
> > > > > finished):
> > > > 
> > > > What kind of system are you using to run these workloads on?
> > > 
> > > I queued jobs on 5 testboxes:
> > >   - brickland1: 120 core Ivybridge server
> > >   - lkp-ib03:   48 core Ivybridge server
> > >   - lkp-sb03:   32 core Sandybridge server
> > >   - lkp-nex04:  64 core NHM server
> > >   - lkp-a04:    Atom server
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > >                v3.12-rc7      fe001e3de090e179f95d  
> > > > > ------------------------  ------------------------  
> > > > >                                 -9.3%               brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> > > > >                                 +4.3%               lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/fork_test
> > > > >                                 +2.2%               lkp-ib03/micro/aim7/shared
> > > > >                                 -2.6%               TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry if I'm missing something, but could you elaborate more on what
> > > > these percentages represent?
> > > 
> > >                v3.12-rc7      fe001e3de090e179f95d  
> > > ------------------------  ------------------------  
> > >                                 -9.3%               brickland1/micro/aim7/shared
> > > ....
> > > ....
> > >                                 -2.6%               TOTAL aim7.2000.jobs-per-min
> > > 
> > > The comparation base is v3.12-rc7, and we got 9.3 performance regression
> > > at commit fe001e3de090e179f95d, which is the head of rwsem performance
> > > optimizations patch set.
> > 
> > Yunahan, thanks for the data.  This I assume is with the entire rwsem
> > v8 patchset. Any idea of the run variation on the workload?
> 
> Yunhan,
> 
> I haven't got a chance to make multiple runs to check the standard
> deviation.  From the few runs I did, I got a 5.1% increase in
> performance for aim7 shared workload for the complete rwsem patchset
> on a similar machine that you are using.  The patches are applied
> to the 3.12-rc7 and compared to the vanilla kernel.

Hi Tim,

Just in case kconfig might matter, here I attached the kernel config I
used.

	--yliu

View attachment "x86_64-lkp-NO_DEBUG" of type "text/plain" (79988 bytes)