On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-22 08:09:01, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we > > > > ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top > > > > level having min and low setup appropriately. More specifically > > > > memory.min equal to size of netperf binary and memory.low double of > > > > that. > > > > > > a similar feedback to the test case description as with other patches. > > > > What more info should I add to the description? Why did I set up min > > and low or something else? > > I do see why you wanted to keep the test consistent over those three > patches. I would just drop the reference to the protection configuration > because it likely doesn't make much of an impact, does it? It is the > multi cpu setup and false sharing that makes the real difference. Or am > I wrong in assuming that? > No, you are correct. I will cleanup the commit message in the next version.
