From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 94F32187540; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:16:55 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717082215; cv=none; b=aKfPl5jdNpEXl9tojErftjSBNQn6VQz2cjSaanLaYIkAGERLn42hIuBS9xjdGyS3G+UxMKkZ+09LhEfkMD6viaC8AGmp5a/yfP+QRpWVCbJ6pKIOVeBHzVDYu+1imUDYSEziwHU318gsrWPPfyzk7Wtms+9yzxZyEitoKiJy/bQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1717082215; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fa0yMmxC2QPbMThwYz+/xLlUrjogilIctWdLDj2RcM0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=JQQIP/SX9hj7Ayuwfctm0ZEBhpE3wWv05lPlbN70eLOpa7IX/aX6U3M4sr9vZV8AGqqw0QWPZkUGDUSiVWBWmxCRJkUe8oSGuTBiyMm84Rbvqmbw9A/vKlayo7fOs0e0E6UyuXDO9edgpYkovDscOnjkuEG7LBY/FxdYlPBtqiQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=JqM9B8lg; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JqM9B8lg" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BE0DFC32781; Thu, 30 May 2024 15:16:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1717082215; bh=fa0yMmxC2QPbMThwYz+/xLlUrjogilIctWdLDj2RcM0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JqM9B8lgLMEU14G4JMKkVxyi0rQSZ0GgNxBmdZ31ubamsPc3dAsXAPpNIsH/KHkIg mKhYPU5eqT0XEfOdVIfwx3e1xJ/9bslazZjlL6GJRYiLyzFI5/FHsgY5alz4vsg+Yl uxYZhauXnZkjj18On86xNKMvuypSdlN9XZ341erSw5lylEkj7AtuXzWoOTsLAA+uAH 7cpnm2s5ZS9XFX+TsFyPGXV0a2VoFX87MeUHrFZVnrfpcZvwi7/vMGjOioJSAemWNm n8Cx1Mty3Qw/sNkVaN07nYH353czFcdFcGpoJvTruWwqicqmEXb6+4VLuvZiMVxAbv lNJWpwXOdPpJw== Date: Thu, 30 May 2024 08:16:53 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Yunsheng Lin Cc: , , , , Alexander Duyck , Andrew Morton , Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 01/13] mm: page_frag: add a test module for page_frag Message-ID: <20240530081653.769e4377@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <1cba403b-a2c7-5706-78b7-91ccc6caa53b@huawei.com> References: <20240528125604.63048-1-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20240528125604.63048-2-linyunsheng@huawei.com> <20240529172938.3a83784d@kernel.org> <1cba403b-a2c7-5706-78b7-91ccc6caa53b@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 30 May 2024 17:17:17 +0800 Yunsheng Lin wrote: > > Is this test actually meaningfully testing page_frag or rather > > the objpool construct and the scheduler? :S > > For the objpool part, I guess it is ok to say that it is a > meaningfully testing for both page_frag and objpool if there is > changing to either of them. Why guess when you can measure it. Slow one down and see if it impacts the benchmark. > For the scheduler part, this test provides the below module param > to avoid the the noise from scheduler. > > +static int test_push_cpu; > +module_param(test_push_cpu, int, 0600); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_push_cpu, "test cpu for pushing fragment"); > + > +static int test_pop_cpu; > +module_param(test_pop_cpu, int, 0600); > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(test_pop_cpu, "test cpu for popping fragment"); > > Or is there any better idea for testing page_frag?