public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
To: Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Cc: kernel test robot <xiaolong.ye@intel.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>, Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] e6cbd7f2ef: pixz.throughput -5.1% regression
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 11:06:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160830100633.GU8119@techsingularity.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <05540bdb-5b31-c75f-887f-64f60ce2580e@leemhuis.info>

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 11:51:20AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Lo! On 08.08.2016 10:29, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > FYI, we noticed a -5.1% regression of pixz.throughput due to commit:
> > 
> > commit e6cbd7f2efb433d717af72aa8510a9db6f7a7e05 ("mm, page_alloc: remove fair zone allocation policy")
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
> > 
> > in testcase: pixz
> > on test machine: 48 threads Ivytown Ivy Bridge-EP with 64G memory
> > with following parameters:
> > 
> > 	nr_threads: 100%
> > 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> 
> Mel, this report made it to the regression list for 4.8, but it seems
> nothing happened after the initial report. Was it discussed (and maybe
> even fixed?) elsewhere? Or was it deemed not important enough? Should I
> drop it for the regression list?
> 

Drop it for the moment.

My expectation is that it's a relatively minor hazard. The removal of the
fair zone allocation policy is a shorter path which benefits a number
of workloads but also potentially changes the color of pages used in
microbenchmarks which can have a cache effect.  It's on my TODO list to
reproduce this exactly as LKP does but my own preliminary experiments using
pbzip (yes, it's different) on 4 machines showed gains on all 4 machines
so something relatively subtle is going on or it's machine specific.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs

      reply	other threads:[~2016-08-30 10:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-08  8:29 [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] e6cbd7f2ef: pixz.throughput -5.1% regression kernel test robot
2016-08-28  9:51 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2016-08-30 10:06   ` Mel Gorman [this message]

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=20160830100633.GU8119@techsingularity.net \
    --to=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lkp@01.org \
    --cc=mhocko@kernel.org \
    --cc=minchan@kernel.org \
    --cc=regressions@leemhuis.info \
    --cc=riel@surriel.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    --cc=xiaolong.ye@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox