Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 3 Dec 2018 19:59:54 +0100
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     ying.huang@intel.com, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        s.priebe@profihost.ag, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        alex.williamson@redhat.com, lkp@01.org,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, kirill@shutemov.name,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        zi.yan@cs.rutgers.edu, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [LKP] [mm] ac5b2c1891: vm-scalability.throughput -61.3%
 regression
Message-ID: <20181203185954.GM31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20181127062503.GH6163@shao2-debian>
 <CAHk-=wiq9eTzenOPh9srdB=Y8NcP6NJxh7o8Y5SfSjfqZ20-RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181127205737.GI16136@redhat.com>
 <87tvk1yjkp.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
 <CAHk-=wjgRO-=NPaU9EmrdC3it3o7kvf4u7sewv3crtNLkE13Hg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=wjgpWOA7zQ9H5=Zj6KQijm5CBXZc7J=it6C5gdEV0hb5Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181203181456.GK31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHk-=whrfDw4yV4h2ijbX3vpXf5m4hzJ5pGX7_v6pU31RGib-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20181203183050.GL31738@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <CAHk-=wgVL_sxXSbjYTiGhxp6+9wLQ9ZmSN+0R5PCF6_a9pQgWw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgVL_sxXSbjYTiGhxp6+9wLQ9ZmSN+0R5PCF6_a9pQgWw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 03-12-18 10:45:35, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:30 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > I do not get it. 5265047ac301 which this patch effectively reverts has
> > regressed kvm workloads. People started to notice only later because
> > they were not running on kernels with that commit until later. We have
> > 4.4 based kernels reports. What do you propose to do for those people?
> 
> We have at least two patches that others claim to fix things.
> 
> You dismissed them and said "can't be done".

You are misinterpreting my words. I haven't dismissed anything. I do
recognize both usecases under discussion.

I have merely said that a better THP locality needs more work and during
the review discussion I have even volunteered to work on that. There
are other reclaim related fixes under work right now. All I am saying
is that MADV_TRANSHUGE having numa locality implications cannot satisfy
all the usecases and it is particurarly KVM that suffers from it.
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs