[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56571F25.5030905@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:03:01 -0500
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
kernel test robot <ying.huang@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: lkp@...org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [lkp] [mm, page_alloc] d0164adc89: -100.0% fsmark.app_overhead
On 11/26/2015 08:25 AM, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:56:12AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>> FYI, we noticed the below changes on
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>> commit d0164adc89f6bb374d304ffcc375c6d2652fe67d ("mm, page_alloc: distinguish between being unable to sleep, unwilling to sleep and avoiding waking kswapd")
>>
>> Note: the testing machine is a virtual machine with only 1G memory.
>>
>
> I'm not actually seeing any problem here. Is this a positive report or
> am I missing something obvious?
I've gotten several reports that could be either
positive or negative, but where I am not quite
sure how to interpret the results.
The tool seems to CC the maintainers of the code
that was changed, so I am hoping they will pipe
up when they see a problem.
Of course, that doesn't help in this case :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists