Hi Shakeel, On 2/28/2023 12:50 AM, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 10:35 PM Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Andrew, Shakeel, >> >> On Tue, 2023-01-31 at 10:26 -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote: >>> +per-cpu memory maintainers for FYI. >>> >>> Thread started at >>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202301301057.e55dad5b-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:57 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> We could cut down the number of calls to pcpu_alloc() by a factor >>>>> of 4 >>>>> by having a pcpu_alloc_bulk() that would allocate all four RSS >>>>> counters >>>>> at once. >>>>> >>>>> Just throwing out ideas ... >>>> >>>> Thanks, I will take a stab at pcpu_alloc_bulk() and will share the >>>> result tomorrow. >>>> >>> >>> OK, not a one day effort. >>> >>> Andrew, which option do you prefer? >>> >>> 1. Keep the patches as the test workload (fork ping pong) is not a >>> representative of real world workload and work on improving >>> pcpu_alloc() for 6.4+. >>> >>> 2. Revert the patches for now, improve pcpu_alloc() and re-introduce >>> the patches once we confirm that fork-ping-pong is not regressed >>> anymore. >> This performance regression still can be reproduced on latest master >> branch. So we took option1 here. Right? Thanks. >> > > Yes unless some real workload reports regression. Thanks for the confirmation. Regards Yin, Fengwei > > Shakeel
