| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:33:05 +0800
From: kemi <kemi.wang@...el.com>
To: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@...el.com>
Cc: lkp@...org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp-robot] [iversion] c0cef30e4f: aim7.jobs-per-min -18.0%
regression
Hi, Jeff
Today, I deleted the previous kernel images for commit 3da90b159b146672f830bcd2489dd3a1f4e9e089
and commit c0cef30e4ff0dc025f4a1660b8f0ba43ed58426e, respectively. And, re-run the same aim7
jobs for three times for each commit. The aim7 score between two commit does not have obvious difference.
Perhaps something weird happen when compiling kernel. Please ignore this report, apologize for the bother.
On 2018年02月25日 23:41, 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.
>
> Is IMA involved here at all? I didn't see any evidence of it, but the
> kernel config did have it enabled.
>
>
>>
>> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists