mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: tglx@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de,
	Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>,
	Calvin Owens <calvin@wbinvd.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86-ML <x86@kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 8aeb879baf12 - significant system call latency regression, bisected
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 16:52:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d15b2624-8bd9-476a-bd72-cb769c1c2d22@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <203E61B7-290F-4F87-860F-B352D0072703@zytor.com>

On 2026-06-13 13:34, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 2026-06-13 01:59, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 06:45:06PM -0700, "H. Peter Anvin" (Intel) wrote:
>>> So I was trying to figure out a significant -- about 13% -- increase
>>> in system call latency between v7.0 and the current master, and it
>>> bisects down to:
>>>
>>> 	8aeb879baf12 x86/kvm/vmx: Fix x86_64 CFI build
>>>
>>> This is on Panther Lake (Core Ultra X7 358H) with FRED enabled. This
>>> is a bare metal boot, no KVM.
>>>
>>> I'm personally extremely puzzled how this could possibly be related,
>>> and I will be investigating the possibility that this is a false
>>> bisect, but it is not a Heisenbug in any way; it has been extremely
>>> reproducible, and the difference is statistically valid by close to 10
>>> sigma. Futhermore, the bisection at least gave the appearance of
>>> stability.
>>>
>>> Given how late in the cycle this is I wanted to send an alert sooner
>>> rather than later; I will update as I get more data.
>>
>> Uhm, massive WTF indeed. I don't immediately see how this could possibly
>> affect a FRED host either, except perhaps in code layout.
>>
>> I don't actually have a FRED capable machine, but have you tried running
>> one of those top-down perf things on it, to see where its hurting?
> 
> Not yet, but I'm investigating right now (I have some family obligations this weekend, so my duty cycle is somewhat limited.)
> 
> I reverted the patch on top of rc7, and it did, in fact, fix the regression,
 > but I'm doing a clean from-scratch rebuild of both trees to make sure
 > there isn't anything in my test setup that could introduce any kind of
 > "memory" between builds...>
Nope, even with the clean rebuild it is 100% reproducible. It is in fact 
worse than I originally stated: the average with 7.1rc7 is 478±6 cycles 
(with the top and bottom octiles removed as outlier protection); with 
7.1rc7 with the above patch reverted it is 397.5±0.4. - this is in fact 
a 20% increase in latency, not 13%...

	-hpa


  reply	other threads:[~2026-06-13 23:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-06-13  1:45 "H. Peter Anvin" (Intel)
2026-06-13  8:59 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-13 20:34   ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-13 23:52     ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2026-06-14  1:50       ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-14 18:08         ` Xin Li
2026-06-14 18:31           ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-15  0:19         ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-15  2:07           ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-15  3:41             ` Linus Torvalds
2026-06-15 18:30               ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-16  7:12                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-16  7:38             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-16  7:53             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-18 23:05               ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19  7:50                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-19 10:22                   ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-16  8:28         ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-16  8:46           ` Linus Torvalds
2026-06-16  9:51             ` Ingo Molnar
2026-06-16 17:44               ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-17  9:54                 ` Ingo Molnar
2026-06-17 10:05                   ` Ingo Molnar
2026-06-17 12:37             ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-18 22:40               ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19  1:11                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19  2:08                   ` Linus Torvalds
2026-06-19  2:11                     ` Linus Torvalds
2026-06-19  4:32                       ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19  7:35                         ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-19  2:11                     ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19  7:31                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-19  8:14               ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-19 10:23                 ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-19 11:18                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2026-06-19 21:53                     ` syscall path improvements (was: syscall performance regression, debunked) H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-16 13:53           ` 8aeb879baf12 - significant system call latency regression, bisected David Laight
2026-06-18 23:03             ` H. Peter Anvin
2026-06-14  2:11       ` Calvin Owens
2026-06-14  2:14         ` Calvin Owens

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=d15b2624-8bd9-476a-bd72-cb769c1c2d22@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=calvin@wbinvd.org \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nathan@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome