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 S1752535AbcHQIsh (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:48:37 -0400
Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:44459 "EHLO mga11.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750927AbcHQIsf (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 17 Aug 2016 04:48:35 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,529,1464678000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1037000779"
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:48:32 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, lkp@01.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [lkp] [sctp] a6c2f79287: netperf.Throughput_Mbps -37.2%
 regression
Message-ID: <20160817084832.GA5342@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
References: <6e529b10-117d-8af0-66b3-2ccfb71acf2a@intel.com>
 <CADvbK_feA94rUXH9QgCT7Yei0QBg5=4Mz9g2TKwX9B5P5kMMug@mail.gmail.com>
 <47965feb-3a4d-4e07-a9ed-86a3d58fb911@intel.com>
 <371c1f25-bc00-c36a-a7f5-fbe05cd58abc@intel.com>
 <CADvbK_f1exO4YaPCjmBQ0MorrXB2vPMZsSSbPh=AB2-XrU3xpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160817061405.GA5401@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
 <20160817063719.GA5463@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
 <CADvbK_dKLU07+tW4f2XpCWgQME8mnjg8EObcfmH4i8s8Aume4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <375f06dd-8439-bba3-8b45-781e1e48dc9c@intel.com>
 <CADvbK_eErG-XPsDZJxjspqfC6dnF7AGSZaWNNzkZajw9SucMAA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CADvbK_eErG-XPsDZJxjspqfC6dnF7AGSZaWNNzkZajw9SucMAA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 04:02:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> >> you mean only this two line:
> >>> +       unsigned long prsctp_param;
> >>> +       int sent_count;ca;
> >>
> >> caused the performance issue ?
> >
> > Right.
> OK, can you remove this line from your patch
> +       int sent_count;
> 
> then test again, thanks.

It doesn't change on my desktop Sandybridge.

$ cat 4.7.0-rc6-01199-g116558d316e8/0/netperf.json
{
  "netperf.Throughput_Mbps": [
   748.2056249999998
  ]
}

Where commit 116558d316e8 is based on top of the last test commit
98dd2532b14e with the sent_count removed.

Thanks,
Aaron