From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: lkp@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [mm] 755d6edc1a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.1% regression
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:00:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190806110024.GA32615@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806080415.GG11812@dhcp22.suse.cz>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1167 bytes --]
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 15:05:47, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -4.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
> I have to confess I cannot make much sense from numbers because they
> seem to be too volatile and the main contributor doesn't stand up for
> me. Anyway, regressions on microbenchmarks like this are not all that
> surprising when a locking is slightly changed and the critical section
> made shorter. I have seen that in the past already.
I guess if it's multi process workload. The patch will give more chance
to be scheduled out so TLB miss ratio would be bigger than old.
I see it's natural trade-off for latency vs. performance so only thing
I could think is just increase threshold from 32 to 64 or 128?
>
> That being said I would still love to get to bottom of this bug rather
> than play with the lock duration by a magic. In other words
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190730125751.GS9330(a)dhcp22.suse.cz
Yes, if we could remove mark_page_accessed there, it would be best.
I added a commen in the thread.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>,
Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>, Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [mm] 755d6edc1a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.1% regression
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:00:24 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190806110024.GA32615@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806080415.GG11812@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Tue 06-08-19 15:05:47, kernel test robot wrote:
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -4.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
>
> I have to confess I cannot make much sense from numbers because they
> seem to be too volatile and the main contributor doesn't stand up for
> me. Anyway, regressions on microbenchmarks like this are not all that
> surprising when a locking is slightly changed and the critical section
> made shorter. I have seen that in the past already.
I guess if it's multi process workload. The patch will give more chance
to be scheduled out so TLB miss ratio would be bigger than old.
I see it's natural trade-off for latency vs. performance so only thing
I could think is just increase threshold from 32 to 64 or 128?
>
> That being said I would still love to get to bottom of this bug rather
> than play with the lock duration by a magic. In other words
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190730125751.GS9330@dhcp22.suse.cz
Yes, if we could remove mark_page_accessed there, it would be best.
I added a commen in the thread.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-06 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-29 7:10 [PATCH] mm: release the spinlock on zap_pte_range Minchan Kim
2019-07-29 7:45 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-29 8:20 ` Minchan Kim
2019-07-29 8:35 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-30 12:11 ` Minchan Kim
2019-07-30 12:32 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-30 12:39 ` Minchan Kim
2019-07-30 12:57 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-31 5:44 ` Minchan Kim
2019-07-31 7:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 10:55 ` Minchan Kim
2019-08-09 12:43 ` [RFC PATCH] mm: drop mark_page_access from the unmap path Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 17:57 ` Mel Gorman
2019-08-09 18:34 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-12 8:09 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-12 15:07 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-13 10:51 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-26 12:06 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-27 16:00 ` Johannes Weiner
2019-08-27 18:41 ` Michal Hocko
2019-07-30 19:42 ` [PATCH] mm: release the spinlock on zap_pte_range Andrew Morton
2019-07-31 6:14 ` Minchan Kim
2019-08-06 7:05 ` [mm] 755d6edc1a: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.1% regression kernel test robot
2019-08-06 7:05 ` kernel test robot
2019-08-06 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 8:04 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 11:00 ` Minchan Kim [this message]
2019-08-06 11:00 ` Minchan Kim
2019-08-06 11:11 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-06 11:11 ` Michal Hocko
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=20190806110024.GA32615@google.com \
--to=minchan@kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.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 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.