| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1519645434.4443.15.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 06:43:54 -0500
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Ye Xiaolong <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [iversion] c0cef30e4f: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.0%
regression
On Mon, 2018-02-26 at 16:38 +0800, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> On 02/25, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-02-25 at 23:05 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > Greeting,
> > >
> > > FYI, we noticed a -18.0% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > >
> > > in testcase: aim7
> > > on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz with 384G memory
> > > with following parameters:
> > >
> > > disk: 4BRD_12G
> > > md: RAID0
> > > fs: xfs
> > > test: disk_src
> > > load: 3000
> > > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > >
> > > test-description: AIM7 is a traditional UNIX system level benchmark suite which is used to test and measure the performance of multiuser system.
> > > test-url: https://sourceforge.net/projects/aimbench/files/aim-suite7/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I'm a bit suspicious of this result.
> >
> > This patch only changes inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} (since renamed to
> > inode_eq_iversion{+raw}), and that neither should ever be called from
> > xfs. The patch is fairly trivial too, and I wouldn't expect a big
> > performance hit.
>
> I tried to queue 4 more times test for both commit c0cef30e4f and its parent,
> the result seems quite stable.
>
> c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e:
> "aim7.jobs-per-min": [
> 32964.01,
> 32938.68,
> 33068.18,
> 32886.32,
> 32843.72,
> 32798.83,
> 32898.34,
> 32952.55
> ],
>
> 3da90b159b146672f830bcd2489dd3a1f4e9e089:
> "aim7.jobs-per-min": [
> 40239.65,
> 40163.33,
> 40353.32,
> 39976.9,
> 40185.75,
> 40411.3,
> 40213.58,
> 39900.69
> ],
>
> Any other test data you may need?
>
> >
> > Is IMA involved here at all? I didn't see any evidence of it, but the
> > kernel config did have it enabled.
> >
>
> Sorry, not quite familiar with IMA, could you tell more about how to check it?
>
Thanks for retesting it, but I'm at a loss for why we're seeing this:
IMA is the the integrity management subsystem. It will use the iversion
field to determine whether to remeasure files during remeasurement. It
looks like the kernel config has it enabled, but it doesn't look like
it's in use, based on the info in the initial report.
This patch only affects two inlined functions inode_cmp_iversion and
inode_cmp_iversion_raw. The patch is pretty trivial (as Linus points
out). These functions are only called from IMA and fs-specific code
(usually in readdir implementations to detect directory changes).
XFS does not call either of these functions however, so I'm a little
unclear on how this patch could slow anything down on this test. The
only thing I can think to do here would be to profile this and see what
stands out.
Note that we do need to keep this in perspective too. This 18%
regression on this test follows around a ~230% improvement that occurred
when we merged the bulk of these patches. It's should still be quite a
bit faster than the v4.15 in this regard.
Still, it'd be good to understand what's going on here.
> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
> >
> > >
> > > Details are as below:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > >
> > >
> > > To reproduce:
> > >
> > > git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> > > cd lkp-tests
> > > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email
> > > bin/lkp run job.yaml
> > >
> > > =========================================================================================
> > > compiler/cpufreq_governor/disk/fs/kconfig/load/md/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> > > gcc-7/performance/4BRD_12G/xfs/x86_64-rhel-7.2/3000/RAID0/debian-x86_64-2016-08-31.cgz/lkp-ivb-ep01/disk_src/aim7
> > >
> > > commit:
> > > 3da90b159b (" f2fs-for-4.16-rc1")
> > > c0cef30e4f ("iversion: make inode_cmp_iversion{+raw} return bool instead of s64")
> > >
> > > 3da90b159b146672 c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8
> > > ---------------- --------------------------
> > > %stddev %change %stddev
> > > \ | \
> > > 40183 -18.0% 32964 aim7.jobs-per-min
> > > 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time
> > > 448.60 +21.9% 546.68 aim7.time.elapsed_time.max
> > > 5615 ± 5% +33.4% 7489 ± 4% aim7.time.involuntary_context_switches
> > > 3086 +14.0% 3518 aim7.time.system_time
> > > 19439782 -5.6% 18359474 aim7.time.voluntary_context_switches
> > > 199333 +14.3% 227794 ± 2% interrupts.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> > > 0.59 -0.1 0.50 mpstat.cpu.usr%
> > > 2839401 +16.0% 3293688 softirqs.SCHED
> > > 7600068 +15.1% 8747820 softirqs.TIMER
> > > 118.00 ± 43% +98.7% 234.50 ± 15% vmstat.io.bo
> > > 87840 -22.4% 68154 vmstat.system.cs
> > > 552798 ± 6% +15.8% 640107 ± 4% numa-numastat.node0.local_node
> > > 557345 ± 6% +15.7% 644666 ± 4% numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
> > > 528341 ± 7% +21.7% 642933 ± 4% numa-numastat.node1.local_node
> > > 531604 ± 7% +21.6% 646209 ± 4% numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
> > > 2.147e+09 -12.4% 1.88e+09 cpuidle.C1.time
> > > 13702041 -14.7% 11683737 cpuidle.C1.usage
> > > 2.082e+08 ± 4% +28.1% 2.667e+08 ± 5% cpuidle.C1E.time
> > > 4.719e+08 ± 2% +23.1% 5.807e+08 ± 4% cpuidle.C3.time
> > > 1.141e+10 +31.0% 1.496e+10 cpuidle.C6.time
> > > 15672622 +27.8% 20031028 cpuidle.C6.usage
> > > 13520572 ± 3% +29.5% 17514398 ± 9% cpuidle.POLL.time
> > > 278.25 ± 5% -46.0% 150.25 ± 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirtied
> > > 3200 ± 14% -20.6% 2542 ± 19% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_mapped
> > > 277.75 ± 5% -46.2% 149.50 ± 73% numa-vmstat.node0.nr_written
> > > 28.50 ± 52% +448.2% 156.25 ± 70% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirtied
> > > 2577 ± 19% +26.3% 3255 ± 15% numa-vmstat.node1.nr_mapped
> > > 634338 ± 4% +7.8% 683959 ± 4% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
> > > 457411 ± 6% +10.8% 506800 ± 5% numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
> > > 3734 ± 8% -11.5% 3306 ± 6% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local
> > > 1114538 +18.3% 1318978 proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> > > 1106722 +18.5% 1311136 proc-vmstat.numa_local
> > > 22100 +7.5% 23753 ± 4% proc-vmstat.numa_pages_migrated
> > > 1174556 +18.0% 1386359 proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
> > > 1241445 +18.1% 1466086 proc-vmstat.pgfault
> > > 1138310 +19.3% 1358132 proc-vmstat.pgfree
> > > 22100 +7.5% 23753 ± 4% proc-vmstat.pgmigrate_success
> > > 53332 ± 43% +143.0% 129617 ± 14% proc-vmstat.pgpgout
> > > 1.42 ± 2% +1.7 3.07 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate%
> > > 1.064e+10 +123.3% 2.375e+10 perf-stat.branch-misses
> > > 10.79 +0.6 11.43 perf-stat.cache-miss-rate%
> > > 5.583e+09 +5.9% 5.915e+09 perf-stat.cache-misses
> > > 39652092 -5.0% 37662545 perf-stat.context-switches
> > > 1.29 +11.7% 1.44 perf-stat.cpi
> > > 4.637e+12 +12.8% 5.23e+12 perf-stat.cpu-cycles
> > > 8.653e+11 +9.8% 9.498e+11 ± 2% perf-stat.dTLB-loads
> > > 3.654e+11 +12.4% 4.109e+11 perf-stat.dTLB-stores
> > > 0.78 -10.5% 0.70 perf-stat.ipc
> > > 1214932 +17.9% 1432266 perf-stat.minor-faults
> > > 1.334e+09 -1.8% 1.31e+09 perf-stat.node-store-misses
> > > 1.651e+09 -1.8% 1.62e+09 perf-stat.node-stores
> > > 1214954 +17.9% 1432313 perf-stat.page-faults
> > > 256.75 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Avg_MHz
> > > 21.39 -21.4 0.00 turbostat.Busy%
> > > 1200 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Bzy_MHz
> > > 13695007 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1
> > > 11.92 -11.9 0.00 turbostat.C1%
> > > 2116683 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C1E
> > > 1.16 ± 4% -1.2 0.00 turbostat.C1E%
> > > 3112269 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C3
> > > 2.62 ± 2% -2.6 0.00 turbostat.C3%
> > > 15671277 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.C6
> > > 63.38 -63.4 0.00 turbostat.C6%
> > > 49.46 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c1
> > > 1.42 ± 2% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c3
> > > 27.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CPU%c6
> > > 31.41 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CorWatt
> > > 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.CoreTmp
> > > 18919351 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.IRQ
> > > 1.21 ± 18% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc2
> > > 0.67 ± 31% -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.Pkg%pc6
> > > 63.25 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgTmp
> > > 57.63 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.PkgWatt
> > > 30.73 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.RAMWatt
> > > 36030 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.SMI
> > > 3000 -100.0% 0.00 turbostat.TSC_MHz
> > >
> > >
> > > aim7.jobs-per-min
> > >
> > > 41000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > > | ..+....+.... ..+....+....+.... ..+....+....+...+.... |
> > > 40000 +-+ +. +.. + |
> > > 39000 +-+ |
> > > | |
> > > 38000 +-+ |
> > > 37000 +-+ |
> > > | |
> > > 36000 +-+ |
> > > 35000 +-+ |
> > > | |
> > > 34000 +-+ |
> > > 33000 +-+ O O |
> > > O O O O O O O O O O O O O
> > > 32000 +-+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [*] bisect-good sample
> > > [O] bisect-bad sample
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Disclaimer:
> > > Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> > > for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> > > design or configuration may affect actual performance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Xiaolong
> >
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists