linux-kernel - Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] e6cbd7f2ef: pixz.throughput -5.1% regression

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: <05540bdb-5b31-c75f-887f-64f60ce2580e@leemhuis.info>
Date:   Sun, 28 Aug 2016 11:51:20 +0200
From:   Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To:     kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@...baba-inc.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] e6cbd7f2ef: pixz.throughput -5.1%
 regression

Lo! On 08.08.2016 10:29, kernel test robot wrote:
> 
> FYI, we noticed a -5.1% regression of pixz.throughput due to commit:
> 
> commit e6cbd7f2efb433d717af72aa8510a9db6f7a7e05 ("mm, page_alloc: remove fair zone allocation policy")
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> 
> in testcase: pixz
> on test machine: 48 threads Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP with 64G memory
> with following parameters:
> 
> 	nr_threads: 100%
> 	cpufreq_governor: performance

Mel, this report made it to the regression list for 4.8, but it seems
nothing happened after the initial report. Was it discussed (and maybe
even fixed?) elsewhere? Or was it deemed not important enough? Should I
drop it for the regression list?

Side note: During 4.7 we already already had a performance regression in
the same test (and maybe the same test machine) that in the end wasn't
fixed. For details see the thread "795ae7a0de: pixz.throughput -9.1%
regression" (http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1606.0/01156.html ).

Ciao, Thorsten