linux-kernel - Re: [bpf] af7ec13833: 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1d98d1f0-fe84-6df7-f5bd-f4cb2cdb7f45@intel.com>
Date:   Fri, 3 Jul 2020 13:54:39 +0800
From:   Rong Chen <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To:     Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [bpf] af7ec13833: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -2.5% regression



On 6/29/20 11:10 PM, Yonghong Song wrote:
>
>
> On 6/28/20 1:50 AM, kernel test robot wrote:
>> Greeting,
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -2.5% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops 
>> due to commit:
>>
>>
>> commit: af7ec13833619e17f03aa73a785a2f871da6d66b ("bpf: Add 
>> bpf_skc_to_tcp6_sock() helper")
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
>
> One of previous emails claims that
>     commit: 492e639f0c222784e2e0f121966375f641c61b15 ("bpf: Add 
> bpf_seq_printf and bpf_seq_write helpers")
> is reponsible for 2.5% improvement for will-it-scale.per_process_ops, 
> which I believe is false.
>
> This commit should not cause regression.
>
> Probably the variation of performance is caused by test environment 
> which you may want to investigate further to reduce false alarming.
> Thanks!

Hi Yonghong,

It's a function align issue, the commit effects the align of functions 
which causes a little regression,
we force to set -falign-functions=32 in KBUILD_CFLAGS and the regression 
is gone:

diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 70def4907036c..9746afa4edc21 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -476,7 +476,7 @@ LINUXINCLUDE    := \
                 $(USERINCLUDE)

  KBUILD_AFLAGS   := -D__ASSEMBLY__ -fno-PIE
-KBUILD_CFLAGS   := -Wall -Wundef -Werror=strict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
+KBUILD_CFLAGS   := -Wall -Wundef -falign-functions=32 
-Werror=strict-prototypes -Wno-trigraphs \
                    -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-common -fshort-wchar 
-fno-PIE \
                    -Werror=implicit-function-declaration 
-Werror=implicit-int \
                    -Wno-format-security \


Best Regards,
Rong Chen

>
>>
>> in testcase: will-it-scale
>> on test machine: 192 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 9242 CPU @ 
>> 2.30GHz with 192G memory
>> with following parameters:
>>
>>     nr_task: 16
>>     mode: process
>>     test: mmap1
>>     cpufreq_governor: performance
>>     ucode: 0x5002f01
>>
>> test-description: Will It Scale takes a testcase and runs it from 1 
>> through to n parallel copies to see if the testcase will scale. It 
>> builds both a process and threads based test in order to see any 
>> differences between the two.
>> test-url: https://github.com/antonblanchard/will-it-scale
>>
>>
>>
>> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
>>
>>
>> Details are as below:
> [...]