Re: [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec -2.9% regression

To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx>, Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec -2.9% regression
From: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2024 10:11:39 +0200
Cc: oe-lkp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, lkp@xxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>, WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, ying.huang@xxxxxxxxx, feng.tang@xxxxxxxxx, fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <202407301049.5051dc19-oliver.sang@intel.com>
Organization: Red Hat
References: <202407301049.5051dc19-oliver.sang@intel.com>
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird

On 30.07.24 07:00, kernel test robot wrote:



Hello,

kernel test robot noticed a -2.9% regression of stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec on:

Is that test even using hugetlb? Anyhow, this pretty much sounds likenoise and can be ignored.


--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec -2.9% regression
  - From: Yin, Fengwei

References:
- [linus:master] [mm] c0bff412e6: stress-ng.clone.ops_per_sec -2.9% regression
  - From: kernel test robot