linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149% ftq.noise.50% 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAKfTPtDWesAZdfyrQj4SEUUZs7MJ6tWwXKmKav3_FrHf5fgJfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:35:55 +0100
From:   Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
To:     "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc:     Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-developer] [sched/fair] 4e5160766f: +149%
 ftq.noise.50% regression

On 28 February 2017 at 01:33, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> writes:
>
>> Hi Ying,
>>
>> On 21 February 2017 at 03:40, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>>> Hi, Vincent,
>>>
>>> Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org> writes:
>>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the test result,
>>>>>
>>>>> =========================================================================================
>>>>> compiler/cpufreq_governor/freq/kconfig/nr_task/rootfs/samples/tbox_group/test/testcase:
>>>>>   gcc-6/powersave/20/x86_64-rhel-7.2/100%/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/6000ss/lkp-hsw-d01/cache/ftq
>>>>>
>>>>> commit:
>>>>>   4e5160766fcc9f41bbd38bac11f92dce993644aa: first bad commit
>>>>>   09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6ddf1fd685692d49: parent of first bad commit
>>>>>   b524060933c546fd2410c5a09360ba23a0fef846: with fix patch above
>>>>>
>>>>> 4e5160766fcc9f41 09a43ace1f986b003c118fdf6d b524060933c546fd2410c5a093
>>>>> ---------------- -------------------------- --------------------------
>>>>>          %stddev     %change         %stddev     %change         %stddev
>>>>>              \          |                \          |                \
>>>>>       3463 ± 10%     -61.4%       1335 ± 17%      -3.0%       3359 ±  2%  ftq.noise.50%
>>>>>       1116 ± 23%     -73.7%     293.90 ± 30%     -23.8%     850.69 ± 17%  ftq.noise.75%
>>>>
>>>> To be honest, I was expecting at least the same level of improvement
>>>> as the previous patch if not better but i was not expecting worse
>>>> results
>>>
>>> What's your next plan for this regression?  At least your previous patch
>>> could recover part of it.
>>
>> I haven't been able to find better fix than the previous patch so i'm
>> going to send a clean version with proper commit message
>
> Great to know this.  Could you keep me posted?

Yes for sure

>
> Best Regards,
> Huang, Ying
>
>> Regards,
>> Vincent
>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Huang, Ying