Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 25 Apr 2020 15:01:36 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
To:     kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>
Cc:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [x86/mce] 1de08dccd3: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -14.1%
 regression
Message-ID: <20200425130136.GA28245@zn.tnic>
References: <20200425114414.GU26573@shao2-debian>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200425114414.GU26573@shao2-debian>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 07:44:14PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> Greeting,
> 
> FYI, we noticed a -14.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> 
> 
> commit: 1de08dccd383482a3e88845d3554094d338f5ff9 ("x86/mce: Add a struct mce.kflags field")

I don't see how a struct mce member addition will cause any performance
regression. Please check your test case.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, HRB 36809, AG Nürnberg