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:   Tue, 6 Aug 2019 13:11:09 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To:     Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
Cc:     kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Miguel de Dios <migueldedios@google.com>,
        Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>, lkp@01.org
Subject: Re: [mm]  755d6edc1a:  will-it-scale.per_process_ops -4.1% regression
Message-ID: <20190806111109.GV11812@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20190729071037.241581-1-minchan@kernel.org>
 <20190806070547.GA10123@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
 <20190806080415.GG11812@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <20190806110024.GA32615@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190806110024.GA32615@google.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue 06-08-19 20:00:24, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 06-08-19 15:05:47, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > Greeting,
> > > 
> > > FYI, we noticed a -4.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> > 
> > I have to confess I cannot make much sense from numbers because they
> > seem to be too volatile and the main contributor doesn't stand up for
> > me. Anyway, regressions on microbenchmarks like this are not all that
> > surprising when a locking is slightly changed and the critical section
> > made shorter. I have seen that in the past already.
> 
> I guess if it's multi process workload. The patch will give more chance
> to be scheduled out so TLB miss ratio would be bigger than old.
> I see it's natural trade-off for latency vs. performance so only thing
> I could think is just increase threshold from 32 to 64 or 128?

This still feels like a magic number tunning, doesn't it?

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs