Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 15 Apr 2021 18:10:35 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov.dev@gmail.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        Alex Shi <alex.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Chris Down <chris@chrisdown.name>,
        Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@gmail.com>,
        Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@gmail.com>,
        Masayoshi Mizuma <msys.mizuma@gmail.com>,
        Xing Zhengjun <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/5] mm/memcg: Reduce kmemcache memory accounting
 overhead
Message-ID: <20210415171035.GB2531743@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20210414012027.5352-1-longman@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210414012027.5352-1-longman@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 09:20:22PM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> With memory accounting disable, the run time was 2.848s. With memory
> accounting enabled, the run times with the application of various
> patches in the patchset were:
> 
>   Applied patches   Run time   Accounting overhead   Overhead %age
>   ---------------   --------   -------------------   -------------
>        None          10.800s         7.952s              100.0%
>         1-2           9.140s         6.292s               79.1%
>         1-3           7.641s         4.793s               60.3%
>         1-5           6.801s         3.953s               49.7%

I think this is a misleading way to report the overhead.  I would have said:

			10.800s		7.952s		279.2%
			 9.140s		6.292s		220.9%
			 7.641s		4.793s		168.3%
			 6.801s		3.953s		138.8%