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  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:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 20:02:01 +0800
From:   "Chen, Rong A" <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [perf/x86/amd] 471af006a7: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -7.6%
 regression



On 2/12/2020 8:18 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 07:35:14PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -7.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: 471af006a747f1c535c8a8c6c0973c320fe01b22 ("perf/x86/amd: Constrain Large Increment per Cycle events")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>>
>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>> on test machine: 88 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699 v4 @ 2.20GHz with 128G memory
> That commit only changes code relevant to AMD machines; give you have
> this result on an Intel machine makes me think the bisect is flawed.

Hi,

Sorry for the inconvenience, the regression is stable on our platform, 
we're investigating it.

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists