linux-kernel - Re: [smp] a32a4d8a81: 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]

Date:   Wed, 19 May 2021 20:38:39 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "lkp@...ts.01.org" <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        "zhengjun.xing@...el.com" <zhengjun.xing@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [smp]  a32a4d8a81:  netperf.Throughput_tps -2.1% regression

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 06:17:35PM +0000, Nadav Amit wrote:
> >      1287 ± 42%     +75.3%       2256 ± 14%  interrupts.CPU111.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1326 ± 43%     +71.0%       2267 ± 13%  interrupts.CPU119.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1300 ± 45%     +75.9%       2287 ± 37%  interrupts.CPU120.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1299 ± 45%     +60.1%       2081 ± 28%  interrupts.CPU128.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1305 ± 45%     +61.7%       2110 ± 29%  interrupts.CPU131.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1299 ± 45%     +61.8%       2102 ± 28%  interrupts.CPU139.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >     66.67 ±133%     -97.2%       1.83 ±155%  interrupts.CPU14.TLB:TLB_shootdowns
> >      1299 ± 45%    +107.8%       2700 ± 33%  interrupts.CPU142.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >    301.83 ±128%     -95.6%      13.17 ±140%  interrupts.CPU149.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
> >    389.17 ± 89%     -73.5%     103.17 ± 35%  interrupts.CPU164.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> >    389.17 ± 89%     -73.5%     103.17 ± 35%  interrupts.CPU164.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> >      1299 ± 45%     +60.2%       2081 ± 28%  interrupts.CPU35.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1244 ± 50%     +66.8%       2076 ± 27%  interrupts.CPU45.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1300 ± 44%     +59.5%       2075 ± 28%  interrupts.CPU46.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1.50 ± 63%   +1422.2%      22.83 ±167%  interrupts.CPU47.RES:Rescheduling_interrupts
> >    467.33 ± 85%     -64.6%     165.67 ± 74%  interrupts.CPU58.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> >    467.33 ± 85%     -64.6%     165.67 ± 74%  interrupts.CPU58.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> >    306.67 ± 75%     -59.9%     122.83 ± 16%  interrupts.CPU68.NMI:Non-maskable_interrupts
> >    306.67 ± 75%     -59.9%     122.83 ± 16%  interrupts.CPU68.PMI:Performance_monitoring_interrupts
> >      1131 ± 27%     +61.2%       1822 ± 35%  interrupts.CPU85.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> >      1180 ± 31%     +79.6%       2119 ± 24%  interrupts.CPU86.CAL:Function_call_interrupts
> > 

It looks to be sending *waay* more call IPIs, did we mess up the mask or
loose an optimization somewhere?

I'll go read the commit again...