On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 5:54 AM kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> kernel test robot noticed a -30.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops on:
>
>
> commit: c7fbfc7b4e089c4a9b292b1973a42a5761c1342f ("[PATCH v3 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg")
> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Yosry-Ahmed/mm-memcg-change-flush_next_time-to-flush_last_time/20231116-103300
> base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git mm-everything
> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231116022411.2250072-4-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/
> patch subject: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm: memcg: make stats flushing threshold per-memcg
>
> testcase: will-it-scale
> test machine: 104 threads 2 sockets (Skylake) with 192G memory
> parameters:
>
> nr_task: 50%
> mode: thread
> test: fallocate2
> cpufreq_governor: performance
>
>
This regression was also reported in v2, and I explicitly mention it
in the cover letter here:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20231116022411.2250072-1-yosryahmed@xxxxxxxxxx/
In a nutshell, I think this microbenchmark regression does not
represent real workloads. On the other hand, there are demonstrated
benefits on real workloads from this series in terms of stats reading
time.
