[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod5bjVzvgMQ0QoLSVY+JYZmPHaK-0PX6a6kJ_78UAEdX+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 11:19:26 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Vasily Averin <vvs@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@...il.com>,
Yutian Yang <nglaive@...il.com>,
Zefan Li <lizefan.x@...edance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Zhengjun Xing <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [memcg] 0f12156dff: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -33.6% regression
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:54 AM Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:49 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:40 AM Linus Torvalds
> > <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > We are worried about them. I'm considering reverting several of them
> > > because I think the problems are
> > >
> > > (a) big
> > >
> > > (b) nontrivial
> > >
> > > and the patches clearly weren't ready and people weren't aware of this issue.
> >
> > Sounds good to me. Please let me know which patches you are planning
> > to revert. I will work on the followup to make those acceptable.
>
> The one that looks clear-cut is the one in this thread:
>
> 0f12156dff28 memcg: enable accounting for file lock caches
>
> which seems to result in regressions on multiple machines and just be
> very bad for anything that uses file locking. I'm not entirely sure
> how much that would show up in real life, but I can most definitely
> imagine it being a problem on a real load.
>
> There's a few other regression reports I've seen, like
>
> 5387c90490f7 mm/memcg: improve refill_obj_stock() performance
>
> but that one had mixed reports (it improved another benchmark), and it
> looks like Minchan has a fix for the regression already.
>
> And
>
> aa48e47e3906 memcg: infrastructure to flush memcg stats
> b65584344415 memcg: enable accounting for pollfd and select bits arrays
>
> were reported as a regression in -mm, but not in mainline yet.
>
> I assume (but didn't check) that aa48e47e3906 is a bigger deal to revert.
>
I am suspecting aa48e47e3906 might be similar to [1]. I am testing that theory.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210811031734.GA5193@xsang-OptiPlex-9020/T/#u
Powered by blists - more mailing lists