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 504A1C433F5 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:12:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id D3E318D0063; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:12:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id CED5D8D0054; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:12:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id BB5838D0063; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:12:01 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABCE48D0054 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 07:12:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin31.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F57E812285A for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:12:01 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79094097642.31.B4F6930 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7DF40005 for ; Tue, 1 Feb 2022 12:12:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 13:11:57 +0100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1643717518; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=KoYCT5Ajw3bvng7Y4v2BWHQ3eOLblDeukkE/DZmvkTc=; b=ULdyc7e2K4mDRfFRC/wPnIuJWqhuADYbGF82VNM4OASlv5mQp9QltsJfg6H7UVgXz6gMlw OK3g28o76gTy6Qe4bFW9dGRm7o9M//x6Gh/tsJbg6xbc5dfJ8aPmYGUKAH59p40tBdiWSG tXA6+J9jdWVkP6l1s9PZiPmvdPBZw2/d4+zRsxg7UpnUSNJQSCCv5Sx3yJrlcfY7dVIpXx yR1FNennWfC+woRakMP2pGOYhvxGHcwNar3PBMNAfE+ZlMNBN9WeoRtbO7zRedjyUzkZDs Nth/nyGEwJ7iOAteCtO2L40vxcHrvU2tZ1qgyV0GkmLaQ35bu1GoWo1MVZ876w== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1643717518; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject: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=KoYCT5Ajw3bvng7Y4v2BWHQ3eOLblDeukkE/DZmvkTc=; b=lkslniCrb4ene2lnwMn/UypCh2//CunFtxqS6YCOcN8cOXDluoDaUYgpxmTsU5WTjgwj3L YIU5GTSHFG6HU0Bg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Michal Hocko Cc: cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton , Johannes Weiner , Michal =?utf-8?Q?Koutn=C3=BD?= , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Vladimir Davydov , Waiman Long Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/memcg: Add a local_lock_t for IRQ and TASK object. Message-ID: References: <20220125164337.2071854-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de> <20220125164337.2071854-4-bigeasy@linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Stat-Signature: ex8agncoz8rjm5cjgdanfw9gjjud53ko X-Rspam-User: nil Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020 header.b=ULdyc7e2; dkim=pass header.d=linutronix.de header.s=2020e header.b=lkslniCr; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of bigeasy@linutronix.de designates 193.142.43.55 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bigeasy@linutronix.de; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=linutronix.de X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: BE7DF40005 X-HE-Tag: 1643717520-762133 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 2022-02-01 13:04:02 [+0100], Michal Hocko wrote: > > Thanks! This gives us some picture from the microbenchmark POV. I was > more interested in some real life representative benchmarks. In other > words does the optimization from Weiman make any visible difference for > any real life workload? my understanding is that this was micro-benchmark driven. > Sorry, I know that this all is not really related to your work but if > the original optimization is solely based on artificial benchmarks then > I would rather drop it and also make your RT patchset easier. Do you have any real-world benchmark in mind? Like something that is already used for testing/ benchmarking and would fit here? Sebastian