[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALvZod4CZt6oSdyC1xZzWOj2nDCdhk0Qn6Ux1UjNmH9Oe7ukrg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:08:36 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
To: Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com>
Cc: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@...el.com>,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
kernel test robot <lkp@...el.com>,
Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>, Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [memcg] a8c49af3be: hackbench.throughput -13.7% regression
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 9:34 PM Yosry Ahmed <yosryahmed@...gle.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>
> The only seemingly expensive operation in the mod_memcg_state() path
> is the call to cgroup_rstat_updated() (through memcg_rstat_updated()).
> One idea off the top of my head is to batch calls to
> cgroup_rstat_updated(), similar to what 11192d9c124d ("memcg: flush
> stats only if updated") did on the flush side. I am interested to see
> what memcg maintainers think about this problem (and the proposed
> solution).
>
I am suspecting this is some code alignment changes which is causing
this difference. Let's first confirm the issue before thinking about
the optimizations.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists