[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250128113100.GB7145@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2025 12:31:00 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@...el.com>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, oe-lkp@...ts.linux.dev,
lkp@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>
Subject: Re: [linus:master] [x86] 4817f70c25: stress-ng.mmapaddr.ops_per_sec
63.0% regression
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:05:17AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 28.01.25 10:57, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > hi, Qi Zheng,
> >
> > this is more a FYI report than a regression report.
> >
> > by 4817f70c25, parent/4817f70c25 configs have below diff,
> >
> > --- /pkg/linux/x86_64-rhel-9.4/gcc-12/718b13861d2256ac95d65b892953282a63faf240/.config 2025-01-27 16:20:43.419181382 +0800
> > +++ /pkg/linux/x86_64-rhel-9.4/gcc-12/4817f70c25b63ee5e6fd42d376700c058ae16a96/.config 2025-01-26 09:27:16.848625105 +0800
> > @@ -1236,6 +1236,8 @@ CONFIG_IOMMU_MM_DATA=y
> > CONFIG_EXECMEM=y
> > CONFIG_NUMA_MEMBLKS=y
> > CONFIG_NUMA_EMU=y
> > +CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PT_RECLAIM=y
> > +CONFIG_PT_RECLAIM=y
> >
> > #
> > # Data Access Monitoring
> >
> >
> > this report seems show the impact of PT_CLAIM feature for this stress-ng case.
> >
> > To us, this is not a code logic regression, but is kind of 'regression' from a
> > new feature. anyway, below full report just FYI.
>
> mmapaddr test case seems to mostly do mmap+munmap. No obvious sign of
> MADV_DONTNEED, unless buried somewhere :)
>
> So either
>
> (1) The series is reclaiming page tables outside of MADV_DONTNEED, which
> it shouldn't -- in particular not during munmap() where that happens
> already using the "ordinary" page table removal code for removed
> VMAs.
>
> (2) This is the effect of MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE that gets selected?
>
>
> I recall a recent series to select MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE on x86
> unconditionally (@Peter, @Rik).
Those changes should not have made it to Linus yet.
/me updates git and checks...
nope, nothing changed there ... yet
Powered by blists - more mailing lists