Re: [linus:master] [mm] f1a7941243: unixbench.score -19.2% regression

[Shakeel Butt]

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 10:35 PM Yin, Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew, Shakeel,
>
> On Tue, 2023-01-31 at 10:26 -0800, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > +per-cpu memory maintainers for FYI.
> >
> > Thread started at
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/202301301057.e55dad5b-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 9:57 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > >
> > > > We could cut down the number of calls to pcpu_alloc() by a factor
> > > > of 4
> > > > by having a pcpu_alloc_bulk() that would allocate all four RSS
> > > > counters
> > > > at once.
> > > >
> > > > Just throwing out ideas ...
> > >
> > > Thanks, I will take a stab at pcpu_alloc_bulk() and will share the
> > > result tomorrow.
> > >
> >
> > OK, not a one day effort.
> >
> > Andrew, which option do you prefer?
> >
> > 1. Keep the patches as the test workload (fork ping pong) is not a
> > representative of real world workload and work on improving
> > pcpu_alloc() for 6.4+.
> >
> > 2. Revert the patches for now, improve pcpu_alloc() and re-introduce
> > the patches once we confirm that fork-ping-pong is not regressed
> > anymore.
> This performance regression still can be reproduced on latest master
> branch. So we took option1 here. Right? Thanks.
>

Yes unless some real workload reports regression.

Shakeel