linux-kernel - Re: Network performance regression in Linux kernel 6.6 for small socket size test cases

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:02:03 +0700
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>,
 Abdul Anshad Azeez <abdul-anshad.azeez@...adcom.com>, edumazet@...gle.com,
 davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, corbet@....net,
 dsahern@...nel.org, Linux Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Boon Ang <boon.ang@...adcom.com>, John Savanyo
 <john.savanyo@...adcom.com>, Peter Jonasson <peter.jonasson@...adcom.com>,
 Rajender M <rajender.m@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Network performance regression in Linux kernel 6.6 for small
 socket size test cases

On 2/28/24 16:09, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 28.02.24 09:32, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> [also Cc: regressions ML]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:13:27PM +0530, Abdul Anshad Azeez wrote:
>>> During performance regression workload execution of the Linux
>>> kernel we observed up to 30% performance decrease in a specific networking
>>> workload on the 6.6 kernel compared to 6.5 (details below). The regression is
>>> reproducible in both Linux VMs running on ESXi and bare metal Linux.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> We would like to know if there are any opportunities for optimization in
>>> the test cases with small socket sizes.
>>
>> Can you verify the regression on current mainline (v6.8-rc6)?
> 
> Bagas, I know that you are trying to help, but this is not helpful at
> all (and indirectly puts regression tracking and the kernel development
> community into a bad light).
> 
> Asking that question can be the right thing sometimes, for example in a
> bugzilla ticket where the reporter is clearly reporting their first bug.
> But the quoted report above clearly does not fall into that category for
> various obvious reasons.
> 
> If you want to ensure that reports like that are acted upon, wait at
> least two or three work days and see if there is a reply from a
> developer. In case there is none (which happens, but I assume for a bug
> report like this is likely rare) prodding a bit can be okay. But even
> then you definitely want to use a more friendly tone. Maybe something
> like "None of the developers reacted yet; maybe none of them bothered to
> take a closer look because it's unclear if the problem still happens
> with the latest code. You thus might want to verify and report back if
> the problem happens with latest mainline, maybe then someone will take a
> closer look".
> 
> Okay, that has way too many "maybe" in it, but I'm sure you'll get the
> idea. :-D
> 

Oops, I'm always impatient (and forgot to privately mail you) in this case.
Sorry for inconvenience.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara