[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [genirq] cbe16f35be: will-it-scale.per_thread_ops -5.2% regression
On Tue, Apr 27 2021 at 13:42, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27 2021 at 17:00, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed a -5.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to commit:
>> commit: cbe16f35bee6880becca6f20d2ebf6b457148552 ("genirq: Add IRQF_NO_AUTOEN for request_irq/nmi()")
>> master
> this is the second report in the last week which makes not a lot of sense.
> And this oneis makes absolutely no sense at all.
> This commit affects request_irq() and the related variants and has
> exactly ZERO influence on anything related to that test case simply
> because.
> I seriously have to ask the question whether this test infrastructure is
> actually measuring what it claims to measure.
> As this commit clearly _cannot_ have the 'measured' side effect, this
> points to some serious issue in the tests or the test infrastructure
> itself.

Just to illustrate the issue:

I ran the will-it-scale getppid1 test manually against plain v5.12 and
against v5.12 + cherrypicked cbe16f35be, i.e. the "offending" commit.

The result for a full run is just in the noise:

average: < 0.1%
minimum: -0.22%
maximum: 0.29%

IOW very far away from -5.2%.

That's an order of magnitude off.

And no, I'm not going to run that lkp-test muck simply because it's
unusable and the test result of will-it-scale itself is clear enough.



 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-27 21:38    [W:0.103 / U:0.664 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site