linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: 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]

Date:   Fri, 30 Sep 2016 15:05:53 +0800
From:   Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>
To:     Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>, lkp@...org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2%
 regression

On 08/23/2016 05:44 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> Em 19-08-2016 04:24, Aaron Lu escreveu:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 04:19:39AM -0300, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Em 19-08-2016 02:29, Aaron Lu escreveu:
>>> ...
>>>> It doesn't look insane and sctp_wait_for_sndbuf may actually have
>>>> something to do with a larger sctp_chunk I suppose?
>>>>
>>>> The same perf record doesn't capture any sample for the good commit,
>>>> which suggests the nerperf process doesn't sleep in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf.
>>>
>>> Ahhh yes! It does, and then it would mean your txbuf is too small for the
>>> chunk sizes you're using (sctp tests option -m).
>>>
>>> What's your netperf cmdline again please?
>>
>> netperf -4 -t SCTP_STREAM_MANY -c -C -l 300 -- -m 10K -H 127.0.0.1
>>
>> Is the 10K used here a problem? If so, can you suggest a proper value
>> for our netperf performance test? Thanks.
> 
> We're still working on this. Xin could reproduce it on an i3 too, but 
> I'm afraid this commit just unmasked an issue in there. You're 
> overloading the CPU by too much when spawning 8 parallel netperf's on a 
> 4-core system, seems that commit a6c2f79287 was that last rock that made 
> it slip into a precipice. sctp's cwnd and rwnd management are not as 
> good as tcp's and now it seems you're triggering a corner case.
> 
> I hope to have more soon.

I wonder if there is any update on this issue?

Thanks,
Aaron