On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 03:45:54PM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote: > hi, Shakeel, > [...] > > > > > 1. What is the baseline kernel you are using? Is it linux-next or linus? > > If linux-next, which one specifically? > > base is just 59142d87ab03b, which is in current linux-next/master, > and is already merged into linus/master now. > > linux$ git rev-list linux-next/master | grep 59142d87ab03b > 59142d87ab03b8ff969074348f65730d465f42ee > > linux$ git rev-list linus/master | grep 59142d87ab03b > 59142d87ab03b8ff969074348f65730d465f42ee > > > the data for it is the first column in the tables we supplied. > > I just applied your patch upon a94032b35e5f9, so: > > linux$ git log --oneline --graph fd2296741e2686ed6ecd05187e4 > * fd2296741e268 fix for 70a64b7919 from Shakeel <----- your fix patch > * a94032b35e5f9 memcg: use proper type for mod_memcg_state <--- patch-set tip, I believe > * acb5fe2f1aff0 memcg: warn for unexpected events and stats > * 4715c6a753dcc mm: cleanup WORKINGSET_NODES in workingset > * 0667c7870a186 memcg: cleanup __mod_memcg_lruvec_state > * ff48c71c26aae memcg: reduce memory for the lruvec and memcg stats > * aab6103b97f1c mm: memcg: account memory used for memcg vmstats and lruvec stats > * 70a64b7919cbd memcg: dynamically allocate lruvec_stats <--- we reported this as 'fbc' in original report > * 59142d87ab03b memcg: reduce memory size of mem_cgroup_events_index <--- base > Cool, let's stick to the linus tree. I was actually taking next-20240521 and reverting all the patches in the series to treat as the base. One request I have would be to make the base the patch previous to the 59142d87ab03b i.e. not 59142d87ab03b. > > > > > 2. What is the cgroup hierarchy where the workload is running? Is it > > running in the root cgroup? > > Our test system uses systemd from the distribution (debian-12). The workload is > automatically assigned to a specific cgroup by systemd which is in the > sub-hierarchy of root, so it is not directly running in the root cgroup. > > > > > 3. For the followup experiments when needed, can you please remove the > > whole series (including 59142d87ab03b8ff) for the base numbers. > > I cannot understand this very well, if the patch is to fix the regression > cause by this series, seems to me the best way is to apply this patch on top > of the series. anything I misunderstood here? > Sorry I just meant to make the 'base' case to compare against the commit previous to 59142d87ab03b as I said above. I will re-run my experiments on linus tree and report back.
