On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, Huang, Ying wrote: > Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > Does this fix the regression? > > I have tested the patch, it does fix the regression, the test result is > as follows, > > 5df397dec7c4c08c 7cc8f9c7146a5c2dad6e71653c4 7763ba2bb16804313aa52bc78ae > ---------------- --------------------------- --------------------------- > %stddev %change %stddev %change %stddev > \ | \ | \ > 2256919 ± 5% +114.2% 4833919 ± 2% +116.6% 4889199 will-it-scale.16.threads > 8.17 ± 6% -8.2 0.00 -8.2 0.00 perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.native_flush_tlb_one_user.flush_tlb_func.__flush_smp_call_function_queue.__sysvec_call_function.sysvec_call_function > > Where 5df397dec7c4c08c is first bad commit, 7cc8f9c7146a5c2dad6e71653c4 > is its parent commit, and 7763ba2bb16804313aa52bc78ae is the fix > commit. The benchmark score recovered and CPU cycles for tlb flushing > recovered too. I didn't study the patch.diff at all, but slipped it into my testing of Johannes's no-lock_page_memcg-in-rmap: no ill effect seen in 9 hours load. Hugh
