From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-yb1-f200.google.com (mail-yb1-f200.google.com [209.85.219.200]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068C08E0002 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:54:24 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail-yb1-f200.google.com with SMTP id e68so19186862ybb.4 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:54:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from aserp2130.oracle.com (aserp2130.oracle.com. [141.146.126.79]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id m186si31670762ywe.349.2019.01.02.08.54.22 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jan 2019 08:54:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [LKP] [hugetlbfs] 9c83282117: vm-scalability.throughput -4.3% regression References: <20181228142608.GA17624@shao2-debian> From: Mike Kravetz Message-ID: <21117eab-862e-562b-0c86-ec2ccc1f68e4@oracle.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 08:54:07 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20181228142608.GA17624@shao2-debian> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: kernel test robot Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Hugh Dickins , Naoya Horiguchi , "Aneesh Kumar K . V" , Andrea Arcangeli , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Davidlohr Bueso , Prakash Sangappa , Andrew Morton , stable@vger.kernel.org, lkp@01.org On 12/28/18 6:26 AM, kernel test robot wrote: > Greeting, > > FYI, we noticed a -4.3% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit: > > > commit: 9c83282117778856d647ffc461c4aede2abb6742 ("[PATCH v3 1/2] hugetlbfs: use i_mmap_rwsem for more pmd sharing synchronization") > url: https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Mike-Kravetz/hugetlbfs-use-i_mmap_rwsem-for-better-synchronization/20181223-095226 > > > in testcase: vm-scalability > on test machine: 104 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8170 CPU @ 2.10GHz with 64G memory > with following parameters: > > runtime: 300s > size: 8T > test: anon-cow-seq-hugetlb > cpufreq_governor: performance > ucode: 0x200004d I'll take a closer look. The patch does introduce longer i_mmap_rwsem hold times for the sake of correctness. Need to more fully understand the test and results to determine if this is expected. -- Mike Kravetz