From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762074AbYD2QrF (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:47:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754573AbYD2Qqx (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:46:53 -0400 Received: from E23SMTP02.au.ibm.com ([202.81.18.163]:40698 "EHLO e23smtp02.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753998AbYD2Qqx (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:46:53 -0400 Message-ID: <48175005.90400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:12:45 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com Organization: IBM User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080226) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hugh Dickins CC: Ross Biro , linux-mm@kvack.org, lkml , Kamalesh Babulal Subject: Re: Page Faults slower in 2.6.25-rc9 than 2.6.23 References: <661de9470804290752w1dc0cfb3k72e81d828a45765e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ross Biro wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Balbir Singh >> wrote: >>> Hmm.. strange.. I don't remember the overhead being so bad (I'll >>> relook at my old numbers). I'll try and git-bisect this one >> I'm checking 2.6.24 now. A quick run of 2.6.25-rc9 without fake numa >> showed no real change. > > Worth checking 2.6.24, yes. But you've already made it clear that > you do NOT have mem cgroups in your 2.6.25-rc9, so Balbir (probably) > need not worry about your regression: my guess was wrong on that. > Aah.. Yes... but I am definitely interested in figuring out the root cause for the regression. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m3TGlWYH016177 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:47:32 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m3TGol6j276026 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:50:47 +1000 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m3TGkl0F007996 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:46:47 +1000 Message-ID: <48175005.90400@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:12:45 +0530 From: Balbir Singh Reply-To: balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Page Faults slower in 2.6.25-rc9 than 2.6.23 References: <661de9470804290752w1dc0cfb3k72e81d828a45765e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Ross Biro , linux-mm@kvack.org, lkml , Kamalesh Babulal List-ID: Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Ross Biro wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:52 AM, Balbir Singh >> wrote: >>> Hmm.. strange.. I don't remember the overhead being so bad (I'll >>> relook at my old numbers). I'll try and git-bisect this one >> I'm checking 2.6.24 now. A quick run of 2.6.25-rc9 without fake numa >> showed no real change. > > Worth checking 2.6.24, yes. But you've already made it clear that > you do NOT have mem cgroups in your 2.6.25-rc9, so Balbir (probably) > need not worry about your regression: my guess was wrong on that. > Aah.. Yes... but I am definitely interested in figuring out the root cause for the regression. -- Warm Regards, Balbir Singh Linux Technology Center IBM, ISTL -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org