From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB3CC47080 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 12:00:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992A2611CA for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 12:00:26 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 992A2611CA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 25E626B0070; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:00:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 234D86B0071; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:00:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 0D8306B0072; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:00:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0241.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.241]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD3D56B0070 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 08:00:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin34.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C43EAF6A for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 12:00:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78201383610.34.24DB102 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by imf03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6BBC0237D5 for ; Mon, 31 May 2021 12:00:12 +0000 (UTC) IronPort-SDR: 6Y/PBK65fNl+EWMsato9uymqJ00u26oyVFyWHlq2VmY5x7MXdmaXWM7aIp1yQUyRc54FjnMVpB l1E+5yFVtFNQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10000"; a="190460504" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,237,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="190460504" Received: from fmsmga002.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.26]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 31 May 2021 05:00:19 -0700 IronPort-SDR: sd6FdtwMraf70eTCVTU1yYqcag/9eY/X+xxAd5R8c4vJbWY25pYynp4SlC2Mb53cImsdcPAihy GkEfNIDDp30Q== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.83,237,1616482800"; d="scan'208";a="482069253" Received: from shbuild999.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.147.94]) by fmsmga002.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2021 05:00:15 -0700 Date: Mon, 31 May 2021 20:00:15 +0800 From: Feng Tang To: Dave Hansen Cc: Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Hillf Danton , Dave Hansen , Vlastimil Babka , Michal Hocko , LKML , Linux-MM Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6 v2] Calculate pcp->high based on zone sizes and active CPUs Message-ID: <20210531120015.GA89301@shbuild999.sh.intel.com> References: <20210525080119.5455-1-mgorman@techsingularity.net> <7177f59b-dc05-daff-7dc6-5815b539a790@intel.com> <20210528085545.GJ30378@techsingularity.net> <893ce8ed-df14-612b-693f-48c9dac0eb19@intel.com> <20210528151834.GR30378@techsingularity.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Authentication-Results: imf03.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=intel.com (policy=none); spf=none (imf03.hostedemail.com: domain of feng.tang@intel.com has no SPF policy when checking 134.134.136.20) smtp.mailfrom=feng.tang@intel.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: EA6BBC0237D5 X-Stat-Signature: m1r9cybw3mombq1o54hzt376iygnhkbj X-HE-Tag: 1622462412-356100 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, May 28, 2021 at 09:17:41AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 5/28/21 8:18 AM, Mel Gorman wrote: > >> BTW, to do some of this testing, Feng was doing a plain old kernel > >> build. On the one system where this got run, he noted a ~2% regression > >> in build times. Nothing major, but you might want to be on the lookout > >> in case 0day or the other test harnesses find something similar once > >> this series gets to them. > >> > > What type of system was it? > > > > I noticed minor differences for some thread counts on kernel compilations > > but for CascadeLake at least, it was mostly neutral. Below is an old test > > result based on a previous revision. > > It's a Cascade Lake as well. But, I never trust hardware at a hardware > company. These could be preproduction CPUs or BIOS or both, or have > some bonkers configuration knob flipped. > > It's also got a bunch of PMEM plugged and onlined, including the > _possibility_ of kernel data structures ended up on PMEM. They *mostly* > don't end up there, but it does happen on occasion. > > Anyway, I'll see if we can do some more runs with your latest version. > It looks like it's been picked up for -mm so 0day should be pounding on > it soon enough. Yes, usually 0day has more benchmark test covering -mm tree. As for the kbuild test run for v2, after more runs, the previous 2% longer kbuild time turns to 1% shorter time, seems to be in normal deviation range. Also I checked Mel's v3 branch which has the fix for cpuless node, the pcp 'high' looks normal on PMEM node: pagesets cpu: 0 count: 67 high: 724 batch: 63 vm stats threshold: 125 Thanks, Feng