linux-kernel - Re: 6.10/regression/bisected - after f1d97e769152 I spotted increased execution time of the kswapd0 process and symptoms as if there is not enough memory

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: <CAL3q7H6FwUFKb5oODK8jcAbRbjTjsZ2=4usW1_4A6b-t5nF7ng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2024 15:15:47 +0100
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>
To: Mikhail Gavrilov <mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com>
Cc: Andrea Gelmini <andrea.gelmini@...il.com>, 
	Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, 
	Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>, Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, 
	dsterba@...e.com, josef@...icpanda.com
Subject: Re: 6.10/regression/bisected - after f1d97e769152 I spotted increased
 execution time of the kswapd0 process and symptoms as if there is not enough memory

On Sun, Jul 7, 2024 at 8:16 PM Mikhail Gavrilov
<mikhail.v.gavrilov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, Jul 7, 2024, at 5:15 PM Filipe Manana <fdmanana@...nel.org>, wrote:
> > That's good. And is the DE unresponsiveness gone too?
>
> Yes. I don’t know how to objectively measure responsiveness, but there
> There were no more freezes like those on my video.

That's good.

>
> > I see you tested d22fedf5058d, but I updated the branch a couple hours
> > ago, now the top commit is fa8b5dd7fa18.
> > Can you test the updated branch? It may help further in your case.
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/fdmanana/linux.git/commit/?h=test3_em_shrinker_6.10&id=fa8b5dd7fa18a4dc2ea6bdeaf5525b1af348f383
>
> 6.10.0-rc6-test3_em_shrinker_6.10-fa8b5dd7fa18
> up  1:00
> root         269 13.1  0.0      0     0 ?        S    18:01   7:54 [kswapd0]
> up  2:00
> root         269  9.8  0.0      0     0 ?        S    18:01  11:46 [kswapd0]
> up  3:00
> root         269 10.8  0.0      0     0 ?        S    18:01  19:36 [kswapd0]
> up  4:00
> root         269 11.9  0.0      0     0 ?        R    18:01  28:37 [kswapd0]
> up  5:00
> root         269 13.1  0.0      0     0 ?        S    18:01  39:29 [kswapd0]
> up  6:00
> root         269 13.1  0.0      0     0 ?        S    Jul07  47:24 [kswapd0]
>
> It’s as if kswapd0 got worse based on time measurements (it became
> like on the test2 branch), but subjectively, the responsiveness got
> better.

That's weird, I think you might be observing some variance.
I noticed that too for your reports of the test2 branch and the old
test3 branch, which were very identical, yet you got a very
significant difference between them.

Thanks.

>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Mike Gavrilov.