From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757224AbcHYLp0 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:45:26 -0400
Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44765 "EHLO mx2.suse.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1755325AbcHYLpZ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:45:25 -0400
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 13:45:06 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>, lkp@01.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Ville =?utf-8?B?U3lyasOkbMOk?= <ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a:
 will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement
Message-ID: <20160825114506.GA11762@nazgul.tnic>
References: <9FF32F53-5EF8-40D4-B696-A30FDF7201E1@zytor.com>
 <20160816171635.GA10542@nazgul.tnic>
 <796A2A72-06B7-4B3D-AA38-DF558FC75857@zytor.com>
 <20160817054605.GA6728@nazgul.tnic>
 <87r39n58sv.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
 <20160818034513.GA21415@nazgul.tnic>
 <877fbespek.fsf@yhuang-mobile.sh.intel.com>
 <20160818041139.GA22101@nazgul.tnic>
 <20160825092214.GA4643@nazgul.tnic>
 <D6903D5A-D2CA-4FAB-8D3E-5885B8F79AED@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <D6903D5A-D2CA-4FAB-8D3E-5885B8F79AED@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 03:05:19AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I'm wondering if one of those 23 invocations sets up some kind of
> corrupt data that continues to get used.

That could be one plausible explanation. Look at what calls
__sw_hweight64:

initmem_init
numa_policy_init
page_writeback_init
paging_init
pcpu_embed_first_chunk
pcpu_setup_first_chunk
sched_init
set_rq_online.part.46
setup_arch
setup_per_cpu_areas
update_sysctl
x86_64_start_kernel
x86_64_start_reservations
x86_numa_init
zone_sizes_init

I could very well imagine per CPU areas or some sched structure or
whatever getting silently corrupted.

Thanks.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--