| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20210430062846.vrdf7ggsgskkhgzp@lion.mk-sys.cz>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2021 08:28:46 +0200
From: Michal Kubecek <mkubecek@...e.cz>
To: Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@...wei.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, olteanv@...il.com,
ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, andriin@...com,
edumazet@...gle.com, weiwan@...gle.com, cong.wang@...edance.com,
ap420073@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxarm@...neuler.org,
mkl@...gutronix.de, linux-can@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com,
xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, jiri@...nulli.us, andrii@...nel.org,
kafai@...com, songliubraving@...com, yhs@...com,
john.fastabend@...il.com, kpsingh@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
pabeni@...hat.com, mzhivich@...mai.com, johunt@...mai.com,
albcamus@...il.com, kehuan.feng@...il.com, a.fatoum@...gutronix.de,
atenart@...nel.org, alexander.duyck@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com,
jgross@...e.com, JKosina@...e.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v4 1/2] net: sched: fix packet stuck problem for
lockless qdisc
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:15:01AM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2021/4/30 11:11, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> > On 2021/4/23 17:42, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >> On 2021/4/21 17:25, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> >>> On 2021/4/21 16:44, Michal Kubecek wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll try running some tests also on other architectures, including arm64
> >>>> and s390x (to catch potential endinanity issues).
> >>
> >> I tried debugging nperf in arm64, with the below patch:
> >>
> >> Any idea what went wrong here?
> >>
> >> Also, Would you mind running netperf to see if there is similar issue
> >> in your system?
> >
> > Hi, Michal
> > I was able to reproduce the fluctuation for one thread TCP_STREAM test,
>
> I was *not* able
> Sorry for the typo.
I was able to reproduce the same problem with netperf:
marfak:~ # for i in {1..60}; do netperf -H 172.17.1.1 -l 30 -t TCP_STREAM -- -m 1048576; done
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.36
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 7473.68 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.97
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.76
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9024.25
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8364.78
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.22
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.29
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.32
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.58
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.79
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.18
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8771.57 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.01
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.93
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.97
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.05
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.92
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.40
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.41
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.25
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.38
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.28
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.50
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.12
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.27
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.96
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.71
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9205.98
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.69
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.60
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8297.03 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.09
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.38
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.62
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9411.09
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.37
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.37
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.52
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.06
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.66
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9411.63
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.17
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.07
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.09
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.37
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9390.00
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.72
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9260.97
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9334.91
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.57
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.01
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.36
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.47
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.73
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.48
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.36
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9327.42
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9240.33
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.97
(filtered only the interesting lines)
But after some more testing, I was also able to see similar results with
unpatched mainline kernel:
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.28
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9007.17
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9153.22
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.28
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9244.68
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9230.49
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 8723.24 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8289.21 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9258.33
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9251.47
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.23
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9276.87
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9255.61
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9072.78
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.09
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9393.00
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.39
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9404.01
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8412.83 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9368.23
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9259.11
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9121.65
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9169.87
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9154.03
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9336.34
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9187.73
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.54
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 6836.37 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9388.09
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8755.78 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9167.63
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9410.80
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9392.71
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9238.50
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9382.78
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9328.23
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9396.04
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9286.10
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.44
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 7952.34 <---
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9309.95
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9133.38
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 8672.75
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.28
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9411.34
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.27
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9313.60
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9315.10
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.23
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9285.77
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9414.28
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9406.39
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9343.74
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9179.17
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9081.18
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9412.85
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9413.66
131072 16384 1048576 30.01 9346.16
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9410.01
131072 16384 1048576 30.00 9411.22
It's not clear why I haven't seen these before but the problem is
unlikely to by related to your patch set.
Michal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists