| 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: <20181211170551.GB32360@parsley.fieldses.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:05:51 -0500
From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...hat.com>
To: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Martin Wilck <mwilck@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [LKP] [fs/locks] fd7732e033: stress-ng.eventfd.ops 21.9%
improvement
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 05:14:29PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed a 21.9% improvement of stress-ng.eventfd.ops due to commit:
So, doesn't sound like a problem, but just looking into it out of
curiosity.....
I love that you do this, but these reports can be hard to figure out
sometimes. The graphs especially could use better labeling.
> commit: fd7732e033e30b3a586923b57e338c859e17858a ("fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests.")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/jlayton/linux.git locks-next
>
> in testcase: stress-ng
> on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 64G memory
> with following parameters:
>
> nr_threads: 100%
> disk: 1HDD
> testtime: 1s
> class: filesystem
> ucode: 0xb00002e
> cpufreq_governor: performance
Looking at the man page for stress-ng, it doesn't say much about what it
actually does. It does say not to use stress-ng as a benchmark. I
can't tell if it does file locking--the man pages does document some
options which ask for locking (--flock, --locka, --lockf) but I don't
see any evidence in the yaml file or elsewhere that those options are in
use?
These graphs could really use units on the axes. Also:
> stress-ng.fcntl.ops
>
> 120000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 110000 +-O O O O O O O |
> 100000 +-+ |
> | |
> 90000 +-+ |
> 80000 +-+ |
> | |
> 70000 +-+ |
> 60000 +-+ |
> | |
> 50000 +-+ |
> 40000 +-+ |
> |. .+.+..+.+. .+.+..+.+. .+.+.+..+. .+. .+.. .+. .+. .+.|
> 30000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> stress-ng.fcntl.ops_per_sec
>
> 120000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O |
> 110000 +-O O O O O O O |
> 100000 +-+ |
> | |
> 90000 +-+ |
> 80000 +-+ |
> | |
> 70000 +-+ |
> 60000 +-+ |
> | |
> 50000 +-+ |
> 40000 +-+ |
> |. .+.+..+.+. .+.+..+.+. .+.+.+..+. .+. .+.. .+. .+. .+.|
> 30000 +-+----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad sample
I see O's, not but any *'s. And what are the +'s?
--b.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists