On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 11:56 PM Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > hi, Yosry Ahmed, > > On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 07:13:50PM -0700, Yosry Ahmed wrote: > > ... > > > > > I still could not run the benchmark, but I used a version of > > fallocate1.c that does 1 million iterations. I ran 100 in parallel. > > This showed ~13% regression with the patch, so not the same as the > > will-it-scale version, but it could be an indicator. > > > > With that, I did not see any improvement with the fixlet above or > > ___cacheline_aligned_in_smp. So you can scratch that. > > > > I did, however, see some improvement with reducing the indirection > > layers by moving stats_updates directly into struct mem_cgroup. The > > regression in my manual testing went down to 9%. Still not great, but > > I am wondering how this reflects on the benchmark. If you're able to > > test it that would be great, the diff is below. Meanwhile I am still > > looking for other improvements that can be made. > > we applied previous patch-set as below: > > c5f50d8b23c79 (linux-review/Yosry-Ahmed/mm-memcg-change-flush_next_time-to-flush_last_time/20231010-112257) mm: memcg: restore subtree stats flushing > ac8a48ba9e1ca mm: workingset: move the stats flush into workingset_test_recent() > 51d74c18a9c61 mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg > 130617edc1cd1 mm: memcg: move vmstats structs definition above flushing code > 26d0ee342efc6 mm: memcg: change flush_next_time to flush_last_time > 25478183883e6 Merge branch 'mm-nonmm-unstable' into mm-everything <---- the base our tool picked for the patch set > > I tried to apply below patch to either 51d74c18a9c61 or c5f50d8b23c79, > but failed. could you guide how to apply this patch? > Thanks > Thanks for looking into this. I rebased the diff on top of c5f50d8b23c79. Please find it attached.
Attachment:
0001-memcg-move-stats_updates-to-struct-mem_cgroup.patch
Description: Binary data
