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 Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF785C433F5 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 6AB738D0003; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 65A338D0001; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 548E68D0003; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0033.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.33]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498678D0001 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 05:08:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin24.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay05.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBE27181DD40E for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:08:24 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79199021328.24.D90B470 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by imf29.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D94012000D for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:08:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2756B1F39D; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:08:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.com; s=susede1; t=1646215703; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=DGemK1nrn0XMBL5oFqDGQqPoh2lxImcqfxVdurpASjI=; b=Xw7IcZFpcrDA264Db/JnOhECDkv4NmPEC+TrKO1uDn6Nx+QANE0SFSpA74O+WhCqrrtj8g f0QJcXXRfT6QOxbLPb3Wte4tKi/pe8mHP/ZhbQh2bNtkRpG177obHcmBdlVSu8Sg9x8kQS D0APmZk3Qmgay6p81rwmUQBBQ7/5ysg= Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFE8A13BC1; Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:08:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id QjD6ORZCH2K2dAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 02 Mar 2022 10:08:22 +0000 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:08:21 +0100 From: Michal =?iso-8859-1?Q?Koutn=FD?= To: Ivan Babrou Cc: Shakeel Butt , Daniel Dao , kernel-team , Linux MM , Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Feng Tang , Michal Hocko , Hillf Danton , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Regression in workingset_refault latency on 5.15 Message-ID: <20220302100821.GB10867@blackbody.suse.cz> References: <20220224185236.qgzm3jpoz2orjfcw@google.com> <20220225180345.GD12037@blackbody.suse.cz> <20220228230949.xrmy6j2glxsoffko@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Rspamd-Server: rspam09 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 5D94012000D X-Stat-Signature: duqere96nahbn86a5ez354emxt61mpre Authentication-Results: imf29.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com header.s=susede1 header.b=Xw7IcZFp; spf=pass (imf29.hostedemail.com: domain of mkoutny@suse.com designates 195.135.220.29 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mkoutny@suse.com; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=suse.com X-Rspam-User: X-HE-Tag: 1646215704-737330 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 Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 04:48:00PM -0800, Ivan Babrou wrote: > avg = 1100789 nsecs, total: 27051906434 nsecs, count: 24575 Thank you for checking. > Looks like you were right that targeted flush is not going to be as good. Still lots of work to do at once :-/ BTW what was the "last good" kernel that you use as baseline for comparisons? (I can't find it in the thread and I only assume we're comparing against pre-rstat switch, i.e. last good < v5.13?) Regards, Michal