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, 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 >>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists