linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf core: Prepare writing into ring buffer from end

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: <73914DEA-D304-4997-9CEA-9689E3BAA7BE@163.com>
Date:	Sun, 27 Mar 2016 23:30:19 +0800
From:	pi3orama <pi3orama@....com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"Wangnan (F)" <wangnan0@...wei.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, He Kuang <hekuang@...wei.com>,
	Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
	Brendan Gregg <brendan.d.gregg@...il.com>,
	Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Zefan Li <lizefan@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] perf core: Prepare writing into ring buffer from end



发自我的 iPhone

> 在 2016年3月27日，下午11:20，Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> 写道：
> 
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:14:36PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
>>>> I think you enabled some unusual config options?
> 
> x86_64-defconfig
> 
>>> You must enabled CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING. Now I get similar result:
> 
> It has that indeed.
> 
>> After enabling CONFIG_OPTIMIZE_INLINING:
>> 
>> Test its performance by calling 'close(-1)' for 3000000 times and
>> use 'perf record -o /dev/null -e raw_syscalls:* test-ring-buffer' to
>> capture system calls:
>> 
>>                  MEAN         STDVAR
>> BASE            800077.1     23448.13
>> RAWPERF.PRE    2465858.0    603473.70
>> RAWPERF.POST   2471925.0    609437.60
>> 
>> Considering the high stdvar, after applying this patch the performance
>> is not change.
> 
> Why is your variance so immense? And doesn't that render the
> measurements pointless?
> 

For some unknown reason, about
10% of these results raises 2 times of normal
results. Say, "normal results" are about
2200000, but those "outliers" are about
4400000 (I can't access raw data now).
Variance becomes much smaller if I remove
those outliers.

I guess the outliers is caused by some type
of lock stepping? No clue about it.

Thank you.