On Sun, May 19, 2024 at 05:14:39PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> hi, Shakeel,
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 11:28:10PM -0700, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 01:56:30PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > kernel test robot noticed a -11.9% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops on:
> > >
> > >
> > > commit: 70a64b7919cbd6c12306051ff2825839a9d65605 ("memcg: dynamically allocate lruvec_stats")
> > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git master
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for the report. Can you please run the same benchmark but with
> > the full series (of 8 patches) or at least include the ff48c71c26aa
> > ("memcg: reduce memory for the lruvec and memcg stats").
>
> while this bisect, ff48c71c26aa has been checked. it has silimar data as
> 70a64b7919 (a little worse actually)
>
> 59142d87ab03b8ff 70a64b7919cbd6c12306051ff28 ff48c71c26aaefb090c108d8803
> ---------------- --------------------------- ---------------------------
> %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev
> \ | \ | \
> 91713 -11.9% 80789 -13.2% 79612 will-it-scale.per_process_ops
>
>
> ok, we will run tests on tip of the series which should be below if I understand
> it correctly.
>
> * a94032b35e5f9 memcg: use proper type for mod_memcg_state
>
>
Thanks a lot Oliver. One question: what is the filesystem mounted at
/tmp on your test machine? I just wanted to make sure I run the test
with minimal changes from your setup.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Shakeel
> >
