linux-kernel - Re: [kernel] 247f5d7caa: will-it-scale.per_process

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAG48ez0iUi6Qag4M2Y7=SfgJy5nET61NDB=aJ1yDS=GFJ--LZA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Feb 2020 17:29:10 +0100
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
To:     kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [kernel] 247f5d7caa: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.6% improvement

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:56 PM kernel test robot
<rong.a.chen@...el.com> wrote:
[...]
>                             will-it-scale.per_process_ops
>
>   83000 +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>   82000 |-+                                        O O      O O             |
>         |    O O O    O     O  O O      O O O                      O        |
>   81000 |-O        O    O O        O O         O O      O O      O   O    O |
>   80000 |-+                                                            O    |
>         |                                                                   |
>   79000 |-+                                                                 |
>   78000 |-+                                                                 |
>   77000 |-+                                                                 |
>         |                                                                   |
>   76000 |-+                                                                 |
>   75000 |-+                                                                 |
>         |.      .+.             .+.      .+.+..     .+..                    |
>   74000 |-+..+.+   +..+.+.+.+..+   +.+..+      +.+.+    +.+.+.+..+.+        |
>   73000 +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
>                                 will-it-scale.workload
>
>   1.32e+06 +----------------------------------------------------------------+
>            |   O  O O   O      O   O        O O                             |
>    1.3e+06 |-O        O   O O    O   O O O        O        O     O O      O |
>   1.28e+06 |-+                                  O        O            O O   |
>            |                                                                |
>   1.26e+06 |-+                                                              |
>            |                                                                |
>   1.24e+06 |-+                                                              |
>            |                                                                |
>   1.22e+06 |-+                                                              |
>    1.2e+06 |-+                                                              |
>            |                                                                |
>   1.18e+06 |.+.+..+.+.+. .+.+..+.+.+.+.+.+..+.+.+.+.+.+..+.+. .+. .+        |
>            |            +                                    +   +          |
>   1.16e+06 +----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad  sample

Some comments on the report format:

"O" appears in the graphs, but not "*". Is "+" supposed to be the
"bisect-good sample"? Also, what do "per_process_ops" and "workload"
mean - are higher numbers better or worse? And what does "bisect-good"
and "bisect-bad" even mean in the context of a performance
*improvement* - is the "good" commit the newer one and the "bad" one
the older one?