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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists