From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta1.migadu.com (out-179.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E86518AED for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:15:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721859329; cv=none; b=JAsjL2G4uIKJ+B3iRWEQr6RWXpOhf+beKdqjf20VhHnE98UccJq92+MO4F0LR0wR+7vjcv07lK9ORgGUm6Rv/C5yW832IfKsRLqVkg4vmWBU0NYrYiBtfMbMg+B4YV/0oE5GJQF6vsNOEeDeGGwj+uLBjVJmcxJXrzgzdSIWmSM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721859329; c=relaxed/simple; bh=u2np71yq+1G9WizZLsp1n4+ydiTLdn5jwfWYGD3WPzI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=edGrfq4vknQ7xIP4eLj/V1+k2Wy+S/rl6GV1e8pcvI9QCiiod6KYA3hrKQBo1IrH6sSx7PIDYc+z/VUp99+DhGI4HEbZgskmiPSru3d9cyR/q4qoLeBgB/spDH1Qrq5RDIo7HsGIeryhMaSV2LASHF02mYvbrMe+H97djKeLAPc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=eHadiCjB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="eHadiCjB" Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 22:15:17 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1721859325; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=j36qx1vlc4eJgLuKEjO4bAeumQszgxwbVfIt3GwMYuI=; b=eHadiCjBCn9ve/g3AQ/i0M34skHrCjioV9AVLBHBpo7TeMxGy0AN6Ey81EO3ElF2Wujwvu kS3zVPOA1RmKaCZvCuLuG64jP2WIk7YB3jJLZC9JnqL1UdScEM9FnTtvtkNpDI62/8TdqI tKIQpcxkwBJoUN3C2gPF7W6r/wvDK6Y= X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Roman Gushchin To: Oliver Sang Cc: "oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev" , lkp , Linux Memory Management List , Andrew Morton , Shakeel Butt , Johannes Weiner , Michal Hocko , Muchun Song , "cgroups@vger.kernel.org" , "Huang, Ying" , "Tang, Feng" , "Yin, Fengwei" Subject: Re: [linux-next:master] [mm] : aim7.jobs-per-min -29.4% regression Message-ID: References: <202407121335.31a10cb6-oliver.sang@intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: cgroups@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 11:42:33AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > hi, Roman, > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2024 at 01:14:16AM +0800, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 03:53:25PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > > hi, Roman, > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:18:39PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 10:14:31PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > > > > > hi, Roman Gushchin, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 07:03:31PM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:04:48PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > kernel test robot noticed a -29.4% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min on: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > commit: 98c9daf5ae6be008f78c07b744bcff7bcc6e98da ("mm: memcg: guard memcg1-specific members of struct mem_cgroup_per_node") > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for the report! > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd expect that the regression should be fixed by the commit > > > > > > "mm: memcg: add cache line padding to mem_cgroup_per_node". > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you, please, confirm that it's not the case? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > in our this aim7 test, we found the performance partially recovered by > > > > > "mm: memcg: add cache line padding to mem_cgroup_per_node" but not fully > > > > > > > > Thank you for providing the detailed information! > > > > > > > > Can you, please, check if the following patch resolves the regression entirely? > > > > > > no. in our tests, the following patch has little impact. > > > I directly apply it upon 6df13230b6 (if this is not the proper applyment, please > > > let me know, thanks) > > > > Hm, interesting. And thank you for the confirmation, you did everything correct. > > Because the only thing the original patch did was a removal of few fields from > > the mem_cgroup_per_node struct, there are not many options left here. > > Would you mind to try the following patch? > > > > Thank you and really appreciate your help! > > you are welcome! > > though we saw there are further discussions, we still share our test results to > you. > > in our tests, by your new version patch, the regression is entirely resoloved. Hi Oliver, perfect! A patch with a fix landed to the mm tree (you're cc'ed). Once again thank you for the report and for the collaboration on testing fixes! Roman