linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH-tip 00/22] locking/rwsem: Rework rwsem-xadd & enable new rwsem features

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiF2qv4TdKOTaTYeMnmsn4h6z9ot+MRj1=s7dm5y1FUwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 13 Feb 2019 11:56:38 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Chen Rong <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "IngoMolnar@...o2-debian" <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-hexagon@...r.kernel.org, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
        sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
        "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH-tip 00/22] locking/rwsem: Rework rwsem-xadd & enable new
 rwsem features

Ok, those test robot reports are hard to read, but trying to distill it down:

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 1:19 AM Chen Rong <rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
>
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \
>     196250 ±  8%     -64.1%      70494        will-it-scale.per_thread_ops

That's the original 64% regression..

And then with the patch set:

>          %stddev      change         %stddev
>              \          |                \
>      71190             180%     199232 ±  4%  will-it-scale.per_thread_ops

looks like it's back up where it used to be.

So I guess we have numbers for the regression now. Thanks.

And that closes my biggest question for the new model, and with the
new organization that gets ird of the arch-specific asm separately
first and makes it a bit more legible that way, I guess I'll just Ack
the whole series.

             Linus