Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement

From	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement
Date	2016-08-25 22:20 +0200
Message-ID	<sa9i2-5Ly-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <s7mEO-2uu-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <s7mY9-2RP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <s9Z90-7za-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <s9ZLH-82P-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <sa1kt-qZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On August 25, 2016 4:45:06 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> wrote:
>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.

Either way, I think we can conclude that we probably did catch a real problem.
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.

Thread

Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight]  65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-08-16 19:00 +0200
  Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight]  65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops  9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-16 19:20 +0200
    Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight]  65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-08-17 01:20 +0200
      Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight]  65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops  9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-17 07:50 +0200
        Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> - 2016-08-18 00:30 +0200
          Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-18 05:50 +0200
            Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com> - 2016-08-18 06:00 +0200
              Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-18 06:20 +0200
                Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-25 11:30 +0200
                Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-08-25 12:10 +0200
                Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> - 2016-08-25 13:50 +0200
                Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-08-25 22:20 +0200
            Re: [LKP] [lkp] [x86/hweight] 65ea11ec6a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops 9.3% improvement "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> - 2016-08-18 06:00 +0200
      Re: [lkp] [x86/hweight]  65ea11ec6a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops  9.3% improvement Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-08-17 08:50 +0200

csiph-web