linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per

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: <20190121212515.GA18118@avx2>
Date:   Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:25:15 +0300
From:   Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>
To:     Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>, LKP <lkp@...org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per_min -4.8%
 regression

On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -4.8% regression of reaim.jobs_per_min due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 3047027b34b8c6404b509903058b89836093acc7 ("[PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency")
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Waiman-Long/proc-stat-Reduce-irqs-counting-performance-overhead/20190108-104818
> 
> Is this expected? (And it seems like other things in the report below
> are faster? I don't understand why this particular regression was
> called out?)

No, but the sysctl has been dropped, so the point is moot.