linux-kernel - Re: [x86/mce] 7bb39313cd: netperf.Throughput

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: <20210119131759.GL27433@zn.tnic>
Date:   Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:17:59 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
Cc:     "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Jonathan Lemon <bsd@...com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
        lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com,
        zhengjun.xing@...el.com
Subject: Re: [x86/mce]  7bb39313cd:  netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression

On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 08:15:05PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:27:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I bet that the results vary depending on the type of CPU, and also on
> > > the kernel address-space layout, which of course also varies based on
> > > the Kconfig options.  Let's see how the maintainers would like to proceed.
> > 
> > So I ran the "reproduce" script in the original mail on a KBL box here
> > with the .config tailored for it:
> > 
> > cpu family      : 6
> > model           : 158
> > model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz
> > stepping        : 12
> > microcode       : 0xd6
> 
> I will also try to find a similar KBL in 0day to run the job. This
> -4.5% comes from a CascadeLake AP which is 4 nodes, 96C/192T.
> 
> > and I get mixed results. But I'd need to know how exactly they generate
> > the metrics "netperf.Throughput_total_tps" and "netperf.Throughput_tps"
> > 
> > Feng?
> 
> I have to admit I'm just a dumb user of 0day :) I'll leave this question
> to Philip/Oliver/Rong who are from 0day team.
> 
> I assumed you've cloned the lkp-tests.git, and seems one Ruby file
> https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/blob/master/stats/netperf is used to
> process the output of the netperf.

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < rc2.log
Throughput_tps: 12759.701875000002
Throughput_total_tps: 204155.23000000004
workload: 61246569.000000015

$ ../lkp-tests/stats/netperf  < with-holdout.log
Throughput_tps: 12863.416875
Throughput_total_tps: 205814.67
workload: 61744401.00000001

So this definitely depends on the .config because in my case, *with* the
holdout patch it is better vs plain 5.11-rc2.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette