[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220721213337.GV3861211@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 07:33:37 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...ts.01.org, lkp@...el.com,
ying.huang@...el.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
zhengjun.xing@...ux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com
Subject: Re: [xfs] 345a4666a7: vm-scalability.throughput -91.7% regression
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:08:38PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
>
> (just FYI for the possible performance impact of disabling large folios,
> our config, as attached, set default N to XFS_LARGE_FOLIOS)
>
>
> Greeting,
>
> FYI, we noticed a -91.7% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
>
>
> commit: 345a4666a721a81c343186768cdd95817767195f ("xfs: disable large folios except for developers")
Say what? I've never seen that change go past on a public list...
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git xfs-5.20-merge
Oh, it's in a developer's working tree, not something that has been
proposed for review let alone been merged.
So why is this report being sent to lkml, linux-xfs, etc as if it
was a change merged into an upstream tree rather than just the
developer who owns the tree the commit is in?
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists