From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6016020876921861905==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Huang, Ying 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 Message-ID: <87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> In-Reply-To: List-Id: --===============6016020876921861905== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, Linus, Linus Torvalds writes: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot 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=3Dy >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=3Dy >> # CONFIG_CC_STACKPROTECTOR is not set >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=3Dy > > To having the *strong* stack protector enabled: > >> $ grep STACKPROTECTOR config-4.17.0-11783-g050e9baa >> CONFIG_HAVE_CC_STACKPROTECTOR=3Dy >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_STACKPROTECTOR_NONE=3Dy >> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR=3Dy >> CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR_STRONG=3Dy >> CONFIG_CC_HAS_SANE_STACKPROTECTOR=3Dy > > 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 --===============6016020876921861905==-- 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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS 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 AFCE0C43141 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:26:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1B720846 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 08:26:00 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 6F1B720846 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933025AbeFUIZ5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 04:25:57 -0400 Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:23697 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932466AbeFUIZ4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 04:25:56 -0400 X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by orsmga105.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2018 01:25:55 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,251,1526367600"; d="scan'208";a="239031151" Received: from yhuang-dev.sh.intel.com (HELO yhuang-dev) ([10.239.13.118]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Jun 2018 01:25:53 -0700 From: "Huang\, Ying" To: Linus Torvalds Cc: kernel test robot , Masahiro Yamada , Linux Kernel Mailing List , LKP , Aaron Lu Subject: Re: [lkp-robot] [Kbuild] 050e9baa9d: netperf.Throughput_total_tps -5.6% regression (FYI) References: <20180621080624.GO11011@yexl-desktop> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:25:53 +0800 In-Reply-To: (Linus Torvalds's message of "Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:15:09 +0900") Message-ID: <87muvoh7fy.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Linus, Linus Torvalds writes: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:10 PM kernel test robot 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