Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-84988-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Message-ID: <b2b21bca-9c99-4df5-9947-29d19abd89e6@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 19:02:03 +0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: Network performance regression in Linux kernel 6.6 for small
 socket size test cases
Content-Language: en-US
To: Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@lists.linux.dev>,
 Abdul Anshad Azeez <abdul-anshad.azeez@broadcom.com>, edumazet@google.com,
 davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, corbet@lwn.net,
 dsahern@kernel.org, Linux Networking <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Boon Ang <boon.ang@broadcom.com>, John Savanyo
 <john.savanyo@broadcom.com>, Peter Jonasson <peter.jonasson@broadcom.com>,
 Rajender M <rajender.m@broadcom.com>
References: <CALkn8kLOozs5UO52SQa9PR-CiKx_mqW8VF9US94qN+ixyqnkdQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zd7vqSnT6ocYLuZ4@archie.me>
 <8015b1f0-d37b-45de-bd24-12fc21cbf83d@leemhuis.info>
From: Bagas Sanjaya <bagasdotme@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <8015b1f0-d37b-45de-bd24-12fc21cbf83d@leemhuis.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 2/28/24 16:09, Linux regression tracking (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 28.02.24 09:32, Bagas Sanjaya wrote:
>> [also Cc: regressions ML]
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 12:13:27PM +0530, Abdul Anshad Azeez wrote:
>>> During performance regression workload execution of the Linux
>>> kernel we observed up to 30% performance decrease in a specific networking
>>> workload on the 6.6 kernel compared to 6.5 (details below). The regression is
>>> reproducible in both Linux VMs running on ESXi and bare metal Linux.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> We would like to know if there are any opportunities for optimization in
>>> the test cases with small socket sizes.
>>
>> Can you verify the regression on current mainline (v6.8-rc6)?
> 
> Bagas, I know that you are trying to help, but this is not helpful at
> all (and indirectly puts regression tracking and the kernel development
> community into a bad light).
> 
> Asking that question can be the right thing sometimes, for example in a
> bugzilla ticket where the reporter is clearly reporting their first bug.
> But the quoted report above clearly does not fall into that category for
> various obvious reasons.
> 
> If you want to ensure that reports like that are acted upon, wait at
> least two or three work days and see if there is a reply from a
> developer. In case there is none (which happens, but I assume for a bug
> report like this is likely rare) prodding a bit can be okay. But even
> then you definitely want to use a more friendly tone. Maybe something
> like "None of the developers reacted yet; maybe none of them bothered to
> take a closer look because it's unclear if the problem still happens
> with the latest code. You thus might want to verify and report back if
> the problem happens with latest mainline, maybe then someone will take a
> closer look".
> 
> Okay, that has way too many "maybe" in it, but I'm sure you'll get the
> idea. :-D
> 

Oops, I'm always impatient (and forgot to privately mail you) in this case.
Sorry for inconvenience.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara