linux-kernel - Re: [xfs] 345a4666a7: vm-scalability.throughput -91.7% regression

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <YtnHa/IbHyD1QPh0@magnolia>
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 14:38:51 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To:     Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
        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 Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:33:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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.

Correct, djwong-dev has a patch so that I can disable multipage folios
so that I could get other QA work done while willy and I try to sort out
the generic/522 corruption problems.

> 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?

I was wondering that myself.

--D

> -Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@...morbit.com