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  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]
Date:   Thu, 30 May 2019 21:32:15 +0800
From:   kernel test robot <>
To:, Johannes Thumshirn <>,, Linus Torvalds <>,
        Nikolay Borisov <>, WenRuo Qu <>,
        LKML <>
Subject: Re: [btrfs] 2996e1f8bc: -13.2% regression

On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 01:49:14PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 05:17:19PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> > 
> > FYI, we noticed a -13.2% regression of due to commit:
> That's interesting and worth an investigation. This should not happen,
> the code is almost the same, moved from one function to another and the
> call is direct. I'd suspect some low-level causes like cache effects or
> branching, the perf-stats.i.* show some differences.
> Other stats say (slabinfo.*extent_buffer) that there was less work over
> the period. The slab object counter says that the object reuse was
> higher in the bad case.
> And there are many stats that show two digit difference, I'm trying to
> make some sense of that, eg. if memory placement on NUMA nodes can
> affect the speed of checksumming (changed by the patch)
> So I wonder how reliable the test is and if it really does the same
> thing in both cases or if there's some subtle change in the patch that
> we've missed.


The test is unstable, we can't reproduce the issue. It's probably a false
positive, sorry for the inconvenience.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists