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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Tue, 12 Jan 2021 09:30:46 -0800
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc:     Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@...gle.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
        zhengjun.xing@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PCI]  dc83615370:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops -1.2%
 regression

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 10:10:45PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> FYI, we noticed a -1.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> 
> commit: dc83615370e7ebcb181a21a8ad13a77c278ab81c ("PCI: Fix PREL32 relocations for LTO")
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kees/linux.git for-next/kspp

O_o Well that's surprising. This only creates stubs.

>                                 will-it-scale.workload                          
>                                                                                 
>   2.14e+07 +----------------------------------------------------------------+   
>            |.+. .+ :        +  +.+.               +.+. .+   +.+. .+  :      |   
>   2.13e+07 |-+ +    :    +.+       +             +    +         +    :      |   
>            |        :   :           + .+.+..+. .+                     +.    |   
>   2.12e+07 |-+       :  :            +        +                         +.+.|   
>            |         +.+                                                    |   
>   2.11e+07 |-+                                                              |   
>            |                                                                |   
>    2.1e+07 |-+                   O O     O  O O   O     O                   |   
>            |                 O O     O O        O   O O   O O               |   
>   2.09e+07 |-+         O                                                    |   
>            |         O   O                                                  |   
>   2.08e+07 |-O O O O       O                                                |   
>            |                                                                |   
>   2.07e+07 +----------------------------------------------------------------+   
>                                                                                 
>                                                                                 
> [*] bisect-good sample
> [O] bisect-bad  sample

But it's pretty clear _something_ has happened. We'll investigate...

-- 
Kees Cook

Powered by blists - more mailing lists