linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [x86/mce] 1de08dccd3: 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: <20200824151425.GF4794@zn.tnic>
Date:   Mon, 24 Aug 2020 17:14:25 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [x86/mce] 1de08dccd3: will-it-scale.per_process_ops
 -14.1% regression

On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 10:02:59AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
>   1de08dccd383 x86/mce: Add a struct mce.kflags field
>   9554bfe403bd x86/mce: Convert the CEC to use the MCE notifier
> 
> And strange thing is after using gcc9 and debian10 rootfs, with same commits
> the regression turns to a improvement,

How so?

> though the trend keeps, that if we
> changes the kflags from __u64 to __u32, the performance will be no change.
> 
> Following is the comparing of regression, I also attached the perf-profile
> for old and new commit (let me know if you need more data)
> 
> 
> 9554bfe403bdfc08 1de08dccd383482a3e88845d355 
> ---------------- --------------------------- 
>          %stddev     %change         %stddev
>              \          |                \  
>     192362           -15.1%     163343        will-it-scale.287.processes
>       0.91            +0.2%       0.92        will-it-scale.287.processes_idle
>     669.67           -15.1%     568.50        will-it-scale.per_process_ops

This is the data from your previous measurement:

9554bfe403bdfc08 1de08dccd383482a3e88845d355
---------------- ---------------------------
         %stddev     %change         %stddev
             \          |                \
    668.00           -14.1%     573.75        will-it-scale.per_process_ops

If I'm reading it correctly, commit

1de08dccd383 ("x86/mce: Add a struct mce.kflags field")

is still the slower one vs

9554bfe403bd ("x86/mce: Convert the CEC to use the MCE notifier")

Or am I misreading it?

In any case, this really looks like what Tony said: this enlargement of
struct mce pushes some variable into a cacheline-misaligned placement,
causing it to bounce.

The $ 10^6 question is, which variable is that...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg