linux-kernel - Re: [LKP] Re: [hugetlbfs] c0d0381ade: vm-scalability.throughput -33.4% regression

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: <68992a81-a1b9-467b-59c4-48ab65c601c5@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 12 Oct 2020 13:29:13 +0800
From:   Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "Kirill A.Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        Prakash Sangappa <prakash.sangappa@...cle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [LKP] Re: [hugetlbfs] c0d0381ade: vm-scalability.throughput
 -33.4% regression

Hi Mike,

    I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed. It is almost 
the same as 34ae204f1851. Do you have time to look at it? Thanks.

=========================================================================================
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/runtime/size/test/cpufreq_governor/ucode:
 
lkp-knm01/vm-scalability/debian-x86_64-20191114.cgz/x86_64-rhel-7.6/gcc-7/300s/8T/anon-cow-seq-hugetlb/performance/0x11

commit:
   49aef7175cc6eb703a9280a7b830e675fe8f2704
   c0d0381ade79885c04a04c303284b040616b116e
   v5.8
   34ae204f18519f0920bd50a644abd6fefc8dbfcf
   v5.9-rc1
   v5.9-rc8

49aef7175cc6eb70 c0d0381ade79885c04a04c30328                        v5.8 
34ae204f18519f0920bd50a644a                    v5.9-rc1 
   v5.9-rc8
---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- 
--------------------------- --------------------------- 
---------------------------
          %stddev     %change         %stddev     %change 
%stddev     %change         %stddev     %change         %stddev 
%change         %stddev
              \          |                \          |                \ 
         |                \          |                \          | 
          \
      38043 ±  3%     -30.2%      26560 ±  4%     -29.5%      26815 ± 
6%      -7.4%      35209 ±  2%      -7.4%      35244            -8.8% 
   34704        vm-scalability.median
       7.86 ± 19%      +9.7       17.54 ± 21%     +10.4       18.23 ± 
34%      -3.1        4.75 ±  7%      -4.5        3.36 ±  7%      -4.0 
     3.82 ± 15%  vm-scalability.median_stddev%
   12822071 ±  3%     -34.1%    8450822 ±  4%     -33.6%    8517252 ± 
6%     -10.7%   11453675 ±  2%     -10.2%   11513595 ±  2%     -11.6% 
11331657        vm-scalability.throughput
  2.523e+09 ±  3%     -20.7%  2.001e+09 ±  5%     -19.9%  2.021e+09 ± 
7%      +6.8%  2.694e+09 ±  2%      +7.3%  2.707e+09 ±  2%      +5.4% 
2.661e+09        vm-scalability.workload


On 8/22/2020 7:36 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 8/21/20 2:02 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> Would you be willing to test this series on top of 34ae204f1851?  I will need
>> to rebase the series to take the changes made by 34ae204f1851 into account.
> 
> Actually, the series in this thread will apply/run cleanly on top of
> 34ae204f1851.  No need to rebase or port.  If we decide to move forward more
> work is required.  See a few FIXME's in the patches.
> 

-- 
Zhengjun Xing