linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app

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

Message-ID: <e29f82e0-6847-b264-300b-130bb31399d1@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Jul 2019 10:39:20 +0800
From:   Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
        "rong.a.chen@...el.com" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     "lkp@...org" <lkp@...org>,
        "torvalds@...ux-foundation.org" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [SUNRPC] 0472e47660: fsmark.app_overhead 16.0% regression

Hi Trond,

On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As far 
> as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be entirely 
> contained in the NUMA section of your results.
> IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead due to NUMA. I've been 
> asking whether or not that is a correct interpretation of the numbers 
> you published.
Thanks for your feedback. I used the same hardware and the same test 
parameters to test the two commits:
    e791f8e938 ("SUNRPC: Convert xs_send_kvec() to use iov_iter_kvec()")
    0472e47660 ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send code to use iov_iter()")

If it is caused by NUMA, why only commit 0472e47660 throughput is 
decreased? The filesystem we test is NFS, commit 0472e47660 is related 
with the network, could you help to check if have any other clues for 
the regression. Thanks.

-- 
Zhengjun Xing