[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201118134952.GE1981@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 14:49:52 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
lkp@...el.com, ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...el.com, guobing.chen@...el.com,
ming.a.chen@...el.com, frank.du@...el.com, Shuhua.Fan@...el.com,
wangyang.guo@...el.com, Wenhuan.Huang@...el.com,
jessica.ji@...el.com, shan.kang@...el.com, guangli.li@...el.com,
tiejun.li@...el.com, yu.ma@...el.com, dapeng1.mi@...el.com,
jiebin.sun@...el.com, gengxin.xie@...el.com, fan.zhao@...el.com
Subject: Re: [mm/gup] 47e29d32af: phoronix-test-suite.npb.FT.A.total_mop_s
-45.0% regression
On Mon 16-11-20 19:35:31, John Hubbard wrote:
>
> On 11/16/20 6:48 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > Greeting,
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -45.0% regression of phoronix-test-suite.npb.FT.A.total_mop_s due to commit:
> >
>
> That's a huge slowdown...
>
> >
> > commit: 47e29d32afba11b13efb51f03154a8cf22fb4360 ("mm/gup: page->hpage_pinned_refcount: exact pin counts for huge pages")
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git master
>
> ...but that commit happened in April, 2020. Surely if this were a serious
> issue we would have some other indication...is this worth following up
> on?? I'm inclined to ignore it, honestly.
Why this was detected so late is a fair question although it doesn't quite
invalidate the report... The NPB benchmark appears to be a supercomputing
benchmark so concievably it could be heavily using THPs. The question is
why it would be a heavy user of pinning as well but even that is imaginable
considering that MPI is in use etc.
So maybe it is worth trying to reproduce this because heavy THP + pinning
users might be indeed rare and only those would show regressions in THP
pinning performance...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists