linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput

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: <1406281461.5162.38.camel@marge.simpson.net>
Date:	Fri, 25 Jul 2014 11:44:21 +0200
From:	Mike Galbraith <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>
To:	Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
Cc:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jet Chen <jet.chen@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org,
	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [rcu] c0f489d2c6f: -1.5% netperf.Throughput_tps

On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 16:05 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: 
> On 07/25/2014 03:35 PM, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-07-25 at 14:45 +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: 
> >> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
> >>
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> >> commit c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec925eb858727dc7b ("rcu: Bind grace-period kthreads to non-NO_HZ_FULL CPUs")
> >>
> >> abaa93d9e1de2c2  c0f489d2c6fec8994c642c2ec  
> >> ---------------  -------------------------  
> >>      12654 ~ 0%      -1.5%      12470 ~ 0%  ivb43/netperf/300s-25%-TCP_CRR
> >>      12654 ~ 0%      -1.5%      12470 ~ 0%  TOTAL netperf.Throughput_tps
> > 
> > Out of curiosity, what parameters do you use for this test?  In my
> 
> The cmdline for this test is:
> netperf -t TCP_CRR -c -C -l 300

Thanks.  That doesn't switch as heftily as plain TCP_RR, but I'd still
expect memory layout etc to make bisection frustrating as heck.  But no
matter, I was just curious.

Aside: running unbound, the load may get beaten up pretty bad by nohz if
it's enabled.  Maybe for testing the network stack it'd be better to
remove that variable?  Dunno, just a thought.  I only mention it because
your numbers look very low unless the box is ancient or CPU is dinky.

-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/