[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <924a79af-6d7a-316a-1eee-3aebbfd4addf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:29:02 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, kirill@...temov.name,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>, dave@...olabs.net,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] Speculative page faults
Hi Andrew,
On 26/09/2017 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:27:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
>> <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
>>> feedback on this series.
>>>
>>> Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
>>
>> what is the status ?
>> We're eagerly looking forward for this set to land,
>> since we have several use cases for tracing that
>> will build on top of this set as discussed at Plumbers.
>
> There has been sadly little review and testing so far :(
>
> I'll be taking a close look at it all over the next couple of weeks.
>
> One terribly important thing (especially for a patchset this large and
> intrusive) is the rationale for merging it: the justification, usually
> in the form of end-user benefit.
>
> Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
> workloads which are chosen to show performance benefits(!) but, alas,
> no quantitative testing results for workloads which we may suspect will
> be harmed by the changes(?). Even things as simple as impact upon
> single-threaded pagefault-intensive workloads and its effect upon
> CONFIG_SMP=n .text size?
I forgot to mention in my previous email the impact on the .text section.
Here are the metrics I got :
.text size UP SMP Delta
4.13-mmotm 8444201 8964137 6.16%
'' +spf 8452041 8971929 6.15%
Delta 0.09% 0.09%
No major impact as you could see.
Thanks,
Laurent
> If you have additional usecases then please, spell them out for us in
> full detail so we can better understand the benefits which this
> patchset provides.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists