linux-kernel - Re: [linus:master] [shmem] a2e459555c: aim9.disk_src.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]

Message-ID: <ZP++GV9WURg1GhoY@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 09:25:45 +0800
From:   Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>
To:     Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
CC:     "oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev" <oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev>,
        kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        "feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
        "fengwei.yin@...el.com" <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
        <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [shmem]  a2e459555c:  aim9.disk_src.ops_per_sec
 -19.0% regression

hi, Chuck Lever,

On Fri, Sep 08, 2023 at 02:43:22PM +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Sep 8, 2023, at 1:26 AM, kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > kernel test robot noticed a -19.0% regression of aim9.disk_src.ops_per_sec on:
> > 
> > 
> > commit: a2e459555c5f9da3e619b7e47a63f98574dc75f1 ("shmem: stable directory offsets")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > 
> > testcase: aim9
> > test machine: 48 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz (Ivy Bridge-EP) with 112G memory
> > parameters:
> > 
> > testtime: 300s
> > test: disk_src
> > cpufreq_governor: performance
> > 
> > 
> > In addition to that, the commit also has significant impact on the following tests:
> > 
> > +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | testcase: change | aim9: aim9.disk_src.ops_per_sec -14.6% regression                                               |
> > | test machine     | 48 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v2 @ 2.70GHz (Ivy Bridge-EP) with 112G memory |
> > | test parameters  | cpufreq_governor=performance                                                                    |
> > |                  | test=all                                                                                        |
> > |                  | testtime=5s                                                                                     |
> > +------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> > 
> > 
> > If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of
> > the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
> > | Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202309081306.3ecb3734-oliver.sang@intel.com
> 
> Hi, several weeks ago we requested that these tests be run
> again by the robot because they can't be run in environments
> I have available to me (the tests do not run on Fedora, and
> I don't have any big iron).
> 
> We wanted the tests rerun before the patch was committed.
> There was a deafening silence. So I assumed the work I did
> then to address the regression was successful, and the
> patches are now in upstream Linux.
> 
> This new report is disappointing.

I'm so sorry that I missed the test request for
https://lore.kernel.org/all/169030957098.157536.9938425508695693348.stgit@manet.1015granger.net/

just FYI, when this auto-bisect done,
head commit of linus/master: [65d6e954e37872fd9afb5ef3fc0481bb3c2f20f4] was
tested, it already includes
2be4f05af71bb libfs: Remove parent dentry locking in offset_iterate_dir()

in our tests, the regression still exists.


> 
> But, I'm still in a position where I can't run this test,
> and the results don't really indicate where the problem
> is. So I can't possibly address this issue.
> 
> Any suggestions, advice, or help would be appreciated.

if you have further fix patch, could you let us know? I will test it.

> 
> --
> Chuck Lever
> 
>