linux-kernel - Re: [x86/mm/pat] 8d04a5f97a: phoronix-test-suite.glmark2.0.score -23.7% regression

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]

Date:   Sat, 30 Nov 2019 14:35:06 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     mceier@...il.com
Cc:     Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [x86/mm/pat] 8d04a5f97a: phoronix-test-suite.glmark2.0.score
 -23.7% regression

On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 2:09 PM Mariusz Ceier <mceier@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Contents of /sys/kernel/debug/x86/pat_memtype_list on master
> (32ef9553635ab1236c33951a8bd9b5af1c3b1646) where performance is
> degraded:

Diff between good and bad case:

    @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
     PAT memtype list:
     write-back @ 0x55ba4000-0x55ba5000
     write-back @ 0x5e88c000-0x5e8b5000
    -write-back @ 0x5e8b4000-0x5e8b8000
     write-back @ 0x5e8b4000-0x5e8b5000
    +write-back @ 0x5e8b4000-0x5e8b8000
     write-back @ 0x5e8b7000-0x5e8bb000
     write-back @ 0x5e8ba000-0x5e8bc000
     write-back @ 0x5e8bb000-0x5e8be000
    @@ -21,15 +21,15 @@
     uncached-minus @ 0xec260000-0xec264000
     uncached-minus @ 0xec300000-0xec320000
     uncached-minus @ 0xec326000-0xec327000
    -uncached-minus @ 0xf0000000-0xf0001000
     uncached-minus @ 0xf0000000-0xf8000000
    +uncached-minus @ 0xf0000000-0xf0001000
     uncached-minus @ 0xfdc43000-0xfdc44000
     uncached-minus @ 0xfe000000-0xfe001000
     uncached-minus @ 0xfed00000-0xfed01000
     uncached-minus @ 0xfed10000-0xfed16000
     uncached-minus @ 0xfed90000-0xfed91000
    -write-combining @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    -write-combining @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    +uncached-minus @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    +uncached-minus @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
     uncached-minus @ 0x2100000000-0x2100001000
     uncached-minus @ 0x2100001000-0x2100002000
     uncached-minus @ 0x2ffff10000-0x2ffff20000

the first two differences are just trivial ordering differences for
overlapping ranges (starting at 0x5e8b4000 and 0xf0000000)
respectively.

But the final difference is a real difference where it used to be WC,
and is now UC-:

    -write-combining @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    -write-combining @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    +uncached-minus @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000
    +uncached-minus @ 0x2000000000-0x2100000000

which certainly could easily explain the huge performance degradation.

                  Linus