linux-kernel - Re: vchiq: Performance regression since 5.18-rc1

Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Message-ID: <bd8d4306-293e-6755-2f43-c027533d1ff2@i2se.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 May 2022 00:47:04 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzju@...hat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: vchiq: Performance regression since 5.18-rc1

Am 25.05.22 um 17:37 schrieb Marcelo Tosatti:
> On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 04:07:47PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>> Hi Marcelo,
>>
>> Am 25.05.22 um 15:56 schrieb Marcelo Tosatti:
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 09:09:07AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>>> On 2022-05-22 01:22:00 [+0200], Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> while testing the staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm driver with my
>>>>> Raspberry Pi 3 B+ (multi_v7_defconfig) i noticed a huge performance
>>>>> regression since [ff042f4a9b050895a42cae893cc01fa2ca81b95c] mm:
>>>>> lru_cache_disable: replace work queue synchronization with synchronize_rcu
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually i run "vchiq_test -f 1" to see the driver is still working [1].
>>>> What about
>>>> 	https://lore.kernel.org/all/YmrWK%2FKoU1zrAxPI@fuller.cnet/
>>>>
>>>> Sebastian
>>> Stefan,
>>>
>>> Can you please try the patch above ?
>> this was the same as Paul send. I think i need more time for investigation,
>> maybe there is an issue with the application.
> To clarify: they are not the same patches.
Thanks for pointing out. I will test it ASAP.
>
>> All i noticed so far is that in good case the CPU usage is around ~ 60 % and
>> higher, while in bad case the CPU is almost idle. Also the issue is not
>> reproducible with arm64/defconfig.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>>> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>>

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