Greeting, FYI, we noticed a -2.3% regression of unixbench.score due to commit: commit: dcda20b3685f14d4d29d31592fe9898943fce1bb ("Fill in ELF image holes with PROT_NONE to prevent mapping to the hole") url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/blackzert-gmail-com/Fill-in-ELF-image-holes-with-PROT_NONE-to-prevent-mapping-to-the-hole/20170715-045829 in testcase: unixbench on test machine: 12 threads Intel(R) Atom(R) CPU 3958 @ 2.00GHz with 64G memory with following parameters: runtime: 300s nr_task: 1 test: execl cpufreq_governor: performance test-description: UnixBench is the original BYTE UNIX benchmark suite aims to test performance of Unix-like system. test-url: https://github.com/kdlucas/byte-unixbench Details are as below: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> To reproduce: git clone https://github.com/01org/lkp-tests.git cd lkp-tests bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email bin/lkp run job.yaml testcase/path_params/tbox_group/run: unixbench/300s-1-execl-performance/lkp-denverton3 af3c8d98508d3754 dcda20b3685f14d4d29d31592f ---------------- -------------------------- %stddev change %stddev \ | \ 601 587 unixbench.score 37287192 36393335 unixbench.time.minor_page_faults 0 7e+03 7019 ± 58% latency_stats.avg.io_schedule.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_writepage_setup.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath 0 7e+03 7019 ± 58% latency_stats.max.io_schedule.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_writepage_setup.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath 0 7e+03 7019 ± 58% latency_stats.sum.io_schedule.nfs_wait_on_request.nfs_writepage_setup.nfs_updatepage.nfs_write_end.generic_perform_write.nfs_file_write.__vfs_write.vfs_write.SyS_write.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath 6253 ±119% -5e+03 834 ±165% latency_stats.sum.pipe_read.__vfs_read.vfs_read.SyS_read.entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath 4.258e+09 4% 4.418e+09 perf-stat.branch-misses 1.04e+11 1.065e+11 perf-stat.branch-instructions 5.392e+11 5.508e+11 perf-stat.instructions 4.09 4.15 perf-stat.branch-miss-rate% 36099085 35250152 perf-stat.page-faults 36099083 35250150 perf-stat.minor-faults 1.74 -11% 1.54 ± 7% perf-stat.cache-miss-rate% 5.531e+08 -12% 4.891e+08 ± 6% perf-stat.cache-misses unixbench.score 610 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+ | *. .* *.* * .* | 605 ++ : ** * *.* * : | **.* : : ** *.* .***. *.** 600 ++ *.* *.** * * * *.* : .** * * | | **.* *.* + * + *.* : * | 595 ++ * * * | | | 590 ++ | | OOO OO OOO | 585 ++ | | OO OO | 580 OO OO O | | | 575 ++--------------------------------------------------------------------+ [*] bisect-good sample [O] bisect-bad sample Disclaimer: Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software design or configuration may affect actual performance. Thanks, Xiaolong