[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YJWQE8AFjyYpsLYA@google.com>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 19:08:03 +0000
From: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
To: Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@...el.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>
Cc: Pratik Sampat <psampat@...ux.ibm.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"lkp@...ts.01.org" <lkp@...ts.01.org>,
"lkp@...el.com" <lkp@...el.com>,
"ying.huang@...el.com" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"feng.tang@...el.com" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"zhengjun.xing@...el.com" <zhengjun.xing@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [percpu] ace7e70901: aim9.sync_disk_rw.ops_per_sec -2.3%
regression
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 10:52:22AM -0700, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 11:06:06AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> > hi Roman,
> >
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 12:54:59AM +0000, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > > Ping
> >
> > sorry for late.
> >
> > the new patch makes the performance a little better but still has
> > 1.9% regression comparing to
> > f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk depopulation")
>
> Hi Oliver!
>
> Thank you for testing it!
>
> Btw, can you, please, confirm that the regression is coming specifically
> from ace7e70901 ("percpu: use reclaim threshold instead of running for every page")?
> I do see *some* regression in my setup, but the data is very noisy, so I'm not sure
> I can confirm it.
>
> Thanks!
Thanks Oliver and Roman. If this is the case, I'll drop the final patch
and just merge up to f183324133 ("percpu: implement partial chunk
depopulation") into for-next as this is v5.14 anyway.
Oliver, is there a way to trigger the kernel test robot for a specific
test?
Thanks,
Dennis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists