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 498D7C28D13 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:08:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id C5BB28D0002; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id C0D4E8D0001; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id AD4BA8D0002; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0017.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.17]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F50D8D0001 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin23.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7919F1612C8 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:08:02 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79827710004.23.53A9D0E Received: from mail-pj1-f48.google.com (mail-pj1-f48.google.com [209.85.216.48]) by imf07.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3166B40127 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 16:07:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pj1-f48.google.com with SMTP id r14-20020a17090a4dce00b001faa76931beso14452401pjl.1 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:07:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=gUVeYVstiPrcbddnMA7a91R1MVlm8VXe4cQjO+uITck=; b=qJU/J6milNR1oV5NO1gr1r9vhtxCS9d8ZKRW1oRrJmNJqHRx2lxTImH8vetGV6ilAh xUphI7Un4qyUSuEDND0A7UNpIdiG7vRWpyafS5+WDaQhQoAGAG+bLu1MvmhojfFqODDr E2t3KE+j4c9Q/2wqW9Adu8yQo2vKApYIwPjwoEFAVlrMSBiR+Iwkb5mq1xKM6v96mpv+ 50JdfOsjLfzxqZv7VnwabsQ0nGoiOw2s7iWe+FOic0ZSVUCpFyO7jFRxcGiKV62loMir cdsgS511CkPCukoKUkZNZhTCS8NPNZyo1mRO4Lk3b2TNTW9poBkTfUMYiZOcMyMOgoHn YziQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=gUVeYVstiPrcbddnMA7a91R1MVlm8VXe4cQjO+uITck=; b=s1g09wySsSYXo2U4iHI7MVLWaUy5OIXm+gT39DX+4aHanZBL0euQ8c1UVwIzj5yJc/ Z9LMkKPxDK/aPwyQ35geGXp+xfvcSdhztmFq8t5JkMSkGtpH8UAY+MP6Uj2EX+58/9U0 2F0HlL5PCt4nqa7kmr8WKBOUlwYwyUd+K8pF612lM1YKdXJRLKxSux3LfaJaXAh4PdWQ s4//yOoMis1k3D9bl3DMAt2W+0OvpWJ6YRkM/DU9/pkseq3d6wIHovlBMwg7GhCprFgI Z13k4LkRsCtFbUBBv50wycZejCAo/0TslpuaTFr++Kp/E2k9WjBrozRhXiUDdG3snbHI FXLg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo1fJf514a9beEtltAY7OyyAlxrjysqF79hga/vc9rWWjNWq2sV2 HxVfClFGhR1LgLuUok58rKFFGhU9L/+9yxbjUiFJbg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR5MHC/BTxgzO7qC6dLvR96E17Sxi3/i1RXs5BlWoSY9hIdl7PlVXMVRxG/WkibXxiXxoUC6q2ONfVMOvTLKYOs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:4d0f:b0:1f7:ae99:b39d with SMTP id mw15-20020a17090b4d0f00b001f7ae99b39dmr23982623pjb.237.1661184467070; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:07:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220822001737.4120417-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20220822001737.4120417-4-shakeelb@google.com> In-Reply-To: From: Shakeel Butt Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:07:36 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64 To: Michal Hocko Cc: Johannes Weiner , Roman Gushchin , Muchun Song , =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= , Eric Dumazet , Soheil Hassas Yeganeh , Feng Tang , Oliver Sang , Andrew Morton , lkp@lists.01.org, Cgroups , Linux MM , netdev , LKML Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1661184468; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=M14zbKrD1z1gbwjcw+tXAFfSw4LVwtt/hf+sse9HLtbQDuw+rQttZarWpXDcb07wiHioTR J+tcahBi+nno1EQHQW43K8dWAGdlHUWPANfoR3Yl69cNMb23s9BjGpF4WNFiJApSqcuton iIZNmqfc+GB2z4kBzJ1M+c1FUA25UcE= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b="qJU/J6mi"; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1661184468; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=gUVeYVstiPrcbddnMA7a91R1MVlm8VXe4cQjO+uITck=; b=JKsrAYDkMsFH9NsuSyoSMt3Y/UjRdbxgQPgv8Mc5kRbpiYS8nNqPvoykD0Kbjsr/oDdsml eprEos+07+W3exO6g5pIydbLH0Srn2/3fdimCzR/fNPUJYZd3RN2JZ085uCaJC1L/kL9bC lD4/nFAzht5DiH1ssMdvxI+LCuPw6Xo= X-Stat-Signature: j99bfjuuz7oxh6a96wdup7919rmduacf X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3166B40127 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam11 X-Rspam-User: Authentication-Results: imf07.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=google.com header.s=20210112 header.b="qJU/J6mi"; spf=pass (imf07.hostedemail.com: domain of shakeelb@google.com designates 209.85.216.48 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=shakeelb@google.com; dmarc=pass (policy=reject) header.from=google.com X-HE-Tag: 1661184468-734969 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 Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:22 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 22-08-22 08:09:01, Shakeel Butt wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:47 AM Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we > > > > ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top > > > > level having min and low setup appropriately. More specifically > > > > memory.min equal to size of netperf binary and memory.low double of > > > > that. > > > > > > a similar feedback to the test case description as with other patches. > > > > What more info should I add to the description? Why did I set up min > > and low or something else? > > I do see why you wanted to keep the test consistent over those three > patches. I would just drop the reference to the protection configuration > because it likely doesn't make much of an impact, does it? It is the > multi cpu setup and false sharing that makes the real difference. Or am > I wrong in assuming that? > No, you are correct. I will cleanup the commit message in the next version.