From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, LKP <lkp@01.org>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per_min -4.8% regression
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:25:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190121212515.GA18118@avx2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+aEs3bq5Ym+VCYGmPQNJZC44vFk9MJDxH1zq=hZ3N4CA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -4.8% regression of reaim.jobs_per_min due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 3047027b34b8c6404b509903058b89836093acc7 ("[PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency")
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Waiman-Long/proc-stat-Reduce-irqs-counting-performance-overhead/20190108-104818
>
> Is this expected? (And it seems like other things in the report below
> are faster? I don't understand why this particular regression was
> called out?)
No, but the sysctl has been dropped, so the point is moot.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per_min -4.8% regression
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:25:15 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190121212515.GA18118@avx2> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGXu5j+aEs3bq5Ym+VCYGmPQNJZC44vFk9MJDxH1zq=hZ3N4CA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 744 bytes --]
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 09:02:53AM +1300, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 9:44 PM kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -4.8% regression of reaim.jobs_per_min due to commit:
> >
> >
> > commit: 3047027b34b8c6404b509903058b89836093acc7 ("[PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency")
> > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Waiman-Long/proc-stat-Reduce-irqs-counting-performance-overhead/20190108-104818
>
> Is this expected? (And it seems like other things in the report below
> are faster? I don't understand why this particular regression was
> called out?)
No, but the sysctl has been dropped, so the point is moot.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-21 21:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-01-07 15:12 [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] /proc/stat: Extract irqs counting code into show_stat_irqs() Waiman Long
2019-01-07 21:42 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-07 15:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] /proc/stat: Add sysctl parameter to control irq counts latency Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-07 16:07 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-07 16:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-01-07 16:19 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-07 16:33 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 16:59 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-18 8:44 ` [/proc/stat] 3047027b34: reaim.jobs_per_min -4.8% regression kernel test robot
2019-01-18 8:44 ` [LKP] " kernel test robot
2019-01-21 20:02 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-21 20:02 ` Kees Cook
2019-01-21 21:25 ` Alexey Dobriyan [this message]
2019-01-21 21:25 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 22:32 ` [PATCH 0/2] /proc/stat: Reduce irqs counting performance overhead Dave Chinner
2019-01-07 22:41 ` Daniel Colascione
2019-01-07 23:49 ` Alexey Dobriyan
2019-01-07 22:41 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 2:04 ` Dave Chinner
2019-01-08 16:11 ` Michal Hocko
2019-01-08 17:05 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 17:32 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 16:58 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-08 22:27 ` Dave Chinner
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=20190121212515.GA18118@avx2 \
--to=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=dancol@google.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@01.org \
--cc=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=rdunlap@infradead.org \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.