From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71A41C433E1 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 521DB20747 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2020 02:41:12 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lca.pw header.i=@lca.pw header.b="IQCrUIbW" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728662AbgGFCgZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2020 22:36:25 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59186 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728621AbgGFCgZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2020 22:36:25 -0400 Received: from mail-qk1-x744.google.com (mail-qk1-x744.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::744]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D704C061794 for ; Sun, 5 Jul 2020 19:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qk1-x744.google.com with SMTP id b4so33525121qkn.11 for ; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 19:36:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lca.pw; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=sP8AeaVoozfO9npWWBtIIZljVBmSXvMUO9iliaOoAg4=; b=IQCrUIbW25djPzc7S+MU49TH4vVH1Vd+pGBli6+6MKgvtNoKYWzRXgRI1G3Gjcrwao EWF5fKDfubLC4QrN/oQF3XEtAB73ewZ7F4L89Lmb4tOgrb/qNTG0sqcNWnieU/d2w8pU wJPv9GtU6aC5RkDLlGleuKdBAd8UH1qgd51F4dQh331buZ2Tae6vFjJB0zVQKBb/AUeR YAdn/3WsrwIDWoI13yr6c38X4KPPzlTS/xCVPlr/xnKlmGZTiMmskjrq92YpsmV0axFF I+lHefcB21xIzAMKIgrUuIuA7w4siFSmOyYi8NzeXBLUK7LU7dnV2ZkPdcrstZ1Dp470 qViw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=sP8AeaVoozfO9npWWBtIIZljVBmSXvMUO9iliaOoAg4=; b=F6Amsg7WMkWEr4IeKVLXVXlu97a28sKx3gFLVu0jtzR/MWMPL6TomwCf2A1RNoRV83 v7vp1fQlpI5ZANHp66BD1fg+BjGYiexrK5oFyTIQ21U5zxZLWQW9HohRgZd2ntMww7Ud DkslGqDOM7IR+DMefVz47D7herOfJm8yFjjSu8zQ91/fRrj7ANQFBTpeMyOAtC2ZE/fO Oalakx/DqnIBAdNjuRmM7FPcQoGUutSWzeoCOIw5NZkPjjkYsww0E/EVDLN6GLdAXAWQ OeLbARwG/jcixbIJwT71dDzKL5Pzrz4yEfcY4rojQm3pUHGGwIlvE8EKVnC+ZxWZbMxP i2aQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532QVbmEMdJ4iz2O0X8QU7tQD7s5Msep6KnKHmp+bBfCVx6oA3Zs x+3vxx/WmkR9RtnOVX/a+5+c8A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwOxYQmUuL7A1CF/7JW/bxVMJULU8q19x6HmjPK1f5a/QoiaK7T4AQo82o4vbVkuplVxQW5pw== X-Received: by 2002:a37:9c51:: with SMTP id f78mr8648119qke.60.1594002983385; Sun, 05 Jul 2020 19:36:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lca.pw (pool-71-184-117-43.bstnma.fios.verizon.net. [71.184.117.43]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 16sm18216530qkv.48.2020.07.05.19.36.21 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 05 Jul 2020 19:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2020 22:36:14 -0400 From: Qian Cai To: Feng Tang Cc: kernel test robot , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Johannes Weiner , Matthew Wilcox , Mel Gorman , Kees Cook , Luis Chamberlain , Iurii Zaikin , andi.kleen@intel.com, tim.c.chen@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [mm] 4e2c82a409: ltp.overcommit_memory01.fail Message-ID: <20200706023614.GA1231@lca.pw> References: <20200705044454.GA90533@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200705125854.GA66252@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> <20200705155232.GA608@lca.pw> <20200706014313.GB66252@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200706014313.GB66252@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:43:13AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 11:52:32AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 08:58:54PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote: > > > On Sun, Jul 05, 2020 at 08:15:03AM -0400, Qian Cai wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Feng Tang wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I did reproduce the problem, and from the debugging, this should > > > > > be the same root cause as lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200526181459.GD991@lca.pw/ > > > > > that loosing the batch cause some accuracy problem, and the solution of > > > > > adding some sync is still needed, which is dicussed in > > > > > > > > Well, before taking any of those patches now to fix the regression, > > > > we will need some performance data first. If it turned out the > > > > original performance gain is no longer relevant anymore due to this > > > > regression fix on top, it is best to drop this patchset and restore > > > > that VM_WARN_ONCE, so you can retry later once you found a better > > > > way to optimize. > > > > > > The fix of adding sync only happens when the memory policy is being > > > changed to OVERCOMMIT_NEVER, which is not a frequent operation in > > > normal cases. > > > > > > For the performance improvment data both in commit log and 0day report > > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200622132548.GS5535@shao2-debian/ > > > it is for the will-it-scale's mmap testcase, which will not runtime > > > change memory overcommit policy, so the data should be still valid > > > with this fix. > > > > Well, I would expect people are perfectly reasonable to use > > OVERCOMMIT_NEVER for some workloads making it more frequent operations. > > In my last email, I was not saying OVERCOMMIT_NEVER is not a normal case, > but I don't think user will too frequently runtime change the overcommit > policy. And the fix patch of syncing 'vm_committed_as' is only called when > user calls 'sysctl -w vm.overcommit_memory=2'. > > > The question is now if any of those regression fixes would now regress > > performance of OVERCOMMIT_NEVER workloads or just in-par with the data > > before the patchset? > > For the original patchset, it keeps vm_committed_as unchanged for > OVERCOMMIT_NEVER policy and enlarge it for the other 2 loose policies > OVERCOMMIT_ALWAYS and OVERCOMMIT_GUESS, and I don't expect the "OVERCOMMIT_NEVER > workloads" performance will be impacted. If you have suggetions for this > kind of benchmarks, I can test them to better verify the patchset, thanks! Then, please capture those information into a proper commit log when you submit the regression fix on top of the patchset, and CC PER-CPU MEMORY ALLOCATOR maintainers, so they might be able to review it properly. > > - Feng > > > > > Given now this patchset has had so much churn recently, I would think > > "should be still valid" is not really the answer we are looking for. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Feng > > > > > >