From: Huang, Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:25:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxXCD8qLfHcnshLR2_Feb=RLkOFfCeqPF_sShy7rK2cAw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1109 bytes --]
Hi, Linus,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of netperf.Throughput_total_tps
>> due to commit 050e9b ("Kbuild: rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR[_STRONG]
>> config variables")
>
> That's perhaps a surprisingly large cost to stack protector, but you
> did move from "no stack protector at all":
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11782-gbe779f0
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> To having the *strong* stack protector enabled:
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> so you're testing the "no overhead" case to the "worst overhead" case.
Do you have interest in some other comparison?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKP <lkp@01.org>, Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI)
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:25:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFxXCD8qLfHcnshLR2_Feb=RLkOFfCeqPF_sShy7rK2cAw@mail.gmail.com> (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:15:09 +0900")
Hi, Linus,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com> wrote:
>>
>> FYI, we noticed a -5.6% regression of netperf.Throughput_total_tps
>> due to commit 050e9b ("Kbuild: rename CC_STACKPROTECTOR[_STRONG]
>> config variables")
>
> That's perhaps a surprisingly large cost to stack protector, but you
> did move from "no stack protector at all":
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11782-gbe779f0
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> To having the *strong* stack protector enabled:
>
>> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa
>> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=y
>> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=y
>
> so you're testing the "no overhead" case to the "worst overhead" case.
Do you have interest in some other comparison?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-21 8:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-21 8:06 [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI) kernel test robot
2018-06-21 8:06 ` kernel test robot
2018-06-21 8:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-21 8:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-21 8:25 ` Huang, Ying [this message]
2018-06-21 8:25 ` Huang, Ying
2018-06-21 8:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2018-06-21 8:37 ` Linus Torvalds
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com \
--to=ying.huang@intel.com \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.