netdev - 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8015b1f0-d37b-45de-bd24-12fc21cbf83d@leemhuis.info>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 10:09:08 +0100
From: "Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis)"
 <regressions@...mhuis.info>
To: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
 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>,
 Linux Regressions <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
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 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

Ciao, Thorsten