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  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, 29 Aug 2020 20:06:04 +0200
From:   Thomas Zimmermann <>
To:     Mike Kravetz <>,
        kernel test robot <>
Cc:     John Donnelly <>,
        Emil Velikov <>,
        LKML <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [drm/mgag200] 913ec479bb: vm-scalability.throughput 26.2%


Am 27.08.20 um 16:56 schrieb Mike Kravetz:
> On 8/27/20 2:16 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
>> Hi
>> Am 26.08.20 um 10:58 schrieb kernel test robot:
>>> Greeting,
>>> FYI, we noticed a 26.2% improvement of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
>> I guess this resolves the once-measured performance penalty of similar
>> magnitude. But do we really understand these tests? When I sent out
>> patches to resolve the problem, nothing changed. And suddenly the
>> performance is back to normal.
>> Best regards
>> Thomas
>>> commit: 913ec479bb5cc27f99f24d5fd111b3ef29a4deb9 ("drm/mgag200: Replace VRAM helpers with SHMEM helpers")
>>> master
>>> in testcase: vm-scalability
>>> on test machine: 288 threads Intel(R) Xeon Phi(TM) CPU 7295 @ 1.50GHz with 80G memory
>>> with following parameters:
>>> 	runtime: 300s
>>> 	size: 8T
>>> 	test: anon-cow-seq-hugetlb
>>> 	cpufreq_governor: performance
>>> 	ucode: 0x11
> Hello Thomas,
> Did drm changes really impact anon-cow-seq-hugetlb performance?
> My change c0d0381ade79 ("hugetlbfs: use i_mmap_rwsem for more pmd sharing
> synchronization") caused a -33.4% regression of anon-cow-seq-hugetlb.  A
> recent change 34ae204f185 (hugetlbfs: remove call to huge_pte_alloc without
> i_mmap_rwsem) was tested by Zhengjun Xing and improved performance by 20
> something percent.  That seems in line with this report/improvement.

Some of DRM's memory management might be affected by hugetable changes.
While I cannot really point to a specific location, it's not impossible
that there's a connection.

> Perhaps the tooling is not always accurate in determining the commit which
> causes the performance changes?
> Perhaps I am misreading information in the reports?

From what I remember, some of these tests print to the console, which
has always been slow, and has generally been a bad idea for performance
tests. I guess these tests are not very accurate.

Best regards

Thomas Zimmermann
Graphics Driver Developer
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH
Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
(HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg)
Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (517 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists