From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8090C433DB for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749DB22DD3 for ; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 12:27:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2403846AbhASMYA (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:24:00 -0500 Received: from mga06.intel.com ([134.134.136.31]:54319 "EHLO mga06.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391066AbhASMPw (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Jan 2021 07:15:52 -0500 IronPort-SDR: YYjqQEtcqpj/gfL5aDo3lR0VagP7Ymy84OAVE/g1Z5AdwaZRjwF6xeBdXv7hNMrH0gtU9e4ElA 2oRX5lfdvGZQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6000,8403,9868"; a="240455122" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,358,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="240455122" Received: from fmsmga008.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.58]) by orsmga104.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jan 2021 04:15:09 -0800 IronPort-SDR: vj+Apvp/8/VQRHEBXKQjBg/oMEfZ6oult7Y1XIAk4hbexeLre335bF1JWJUbuFhcIN21+ZpbwC Sz9Ju5KFMBLQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.79,358,1602572400"; d="scan'208";a="355572711" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.98]) by fmsmga008.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 19 Jan 2021 04:15:06 -0800 Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:15:05 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Borislav Petkov Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , kernel test robot , Jonathan Lemon , Tony Luck , LKML , x86@kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@intel.com Subject: Re: [x86/mce] 7bb39313cd: netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression Message-ID: <20210119121505.GA111354@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20210112142109.GE30747@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <20210112141438.GF13086@zn.tnic> <20210116035251.GB29609@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210116153413.GP2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210116160921.GA101665@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20210119042721.GA12664@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210119100255.GC27433@zn.tnic> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210119100255.GC27433@zn.tnic> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:27:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I bet that the results vary depending on the type of CPU, and also on > > the kernel address-space layout, which of course also varies based on > > the Kconfig options. Let's see how the maintainers would like to proceed. > > So I ran the "reproduce" script in the original mail on a KBL box here > with the .config tailored for it: > > cpu family : 6 > model : 158 > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz > stepping : 12 > microcode : 0xd6 I will also try to find a similar KBL in 0day to run the job. This -4.5% comes from a CascadeLake AP which is 4 nodes, 96C/192T. > and I get mixed results. But I'd need to know how exactly they generate > the metrics "netperf.Throughput_total_tps" and "netperf.Throughput_tps" > > Feng? I have to admit I'm just a dumb user of 0day :) I'll leave this question to Philip/Oliver/Rong who are from 0day team. I assumed you've cloned the lkp-tests.git, and seems one Ruby file https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/blob/master/stats/netperf is used to process the output of the netperf. Thanks, Feng > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1821313820191225005==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Feng Tang To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [x86/mce] 7bb39313cd: netperf.Throughput_tps -4.5% regression Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 20:15:05 +0800 Message-ID: <20210119121505.GA111354@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20210119100255.GC27433@zn.tnic> List-Id: --===============1821313820191225005== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 08:27:21PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > I bet that the results vary depending on the type of CPU, and also on > > the kernel address-space layout, which of course also varies based on > > the Kconfig options. Let's see how the maintainers would like to proce= ed. > = > So I ran the "reproduce" script in the original mail on a KBL box here > with the .config tailored for it: > = > cpu family : 6 > model : 158 > model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-9600K CPU @ 3.70GHz > stepping : 12 > microcode : 0xd6 I will also try to find a similar KBL in 0day to run the job. This -4.5% comes from a CascadeLake AP which is 4 nodes, 96C/192T. > and I get mixed results. But I'd need to know how exactly they generate > the metrics "netperf.Throughput_total_tps" and "netperf.Throughput_tps" > = > Feng? I have to admit I'm just a dumb user of 0day :) I'll leave this question to Philip/Oliver/Rong who are from 0day team. I assumed you've cloned the lkp-tests.git, and seems one Ruby file https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests/blob/master/stats/netperf is used to process the output of the netperf. Thanks, Feng > -- = > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > = > https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette --===============1821313820191225005==--