linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [locking] c8afaa1b0f: stress-ng.zero.ops_per

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:   Tue, 15 Aug 2023 07:33:36 +0000
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc:     Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@...il.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
        lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, ying.huang@...el.com,
        feng.tang@...el.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [locking] c8afaa1b0f: stress-ng.zero.ops_per_sec
 6.3% improvement

On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 at 07:12, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
>
> kernel test robot noticed a 6.3% improvement of stress-ng.zero.ops_per_sec on:

WTF? That's ridiculous. Why would that even test new_inode() at all?
And why would it make any difference anyway to prefetch a new inode?
The 'zero' test claims to just read /dev/zero in a loop...

[ Goes looking ]

>      39.35            -0.3       39.09        perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.inode_sb_list_add.new_inode.shmem_get_inode.__shmem_file_setup.shmem_zero_setup

Ahh. It also does the mmap side, and the shared case ends up always
creating a new inode.

And while the test only tests *reading* and the mmap is read-only, the
/dev/zero file descriptor was opened for writing too, for a different
part of a test.

So even though the mapping is never written to, MAYWRITE is set, and
so the /dev/zero mapping is done as a shared memory mapping and we
can't do it as just a private one.

That's kind of stupid and looks unintentional, but whatever.

End result: that benchmark ends up being at least partly (and a fairly
noticeable part) a shmem setup benchmark, for no actual good reason.

Oh well. I certainly don't mind the removal apparently then also
helping some odd benchmark case, but I don't think this translates to
anything real. Very random.

                    Linus