Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 21 Jul 2022 19:21:39 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To:     Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org, lkp@intel.com,
        ying.huang@intel.com, feng.tang@intel.com,
        zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com, fengwei.yin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [xfs]  345a4666a7:  vm-scalability.throughput -91.7% regression
Message-ID: <YtoJs8mv7vle8Mhh@magnolia>
References: <Ytlr9vZbF4SOfA2n@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
 <20220721213337.GV3861211@dread.disaster.area>
 <YtnHa/IbHyD1QPh0@magnolia>
 <YtoG+kcaC8yfMEZW@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YtoG+kcaC8yfMEZW@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 10:10:02AM +0800, Oliver Sang wrote:
> Hi Darrick, Hi Dave, and all,
> 
> sorry for this report is annoying according to Darrick and Dave's comments
> below.
> we will investigate this case and refine our report process.

FWIW, you can still send /me/ reports about the xfs development patches
I post to djwong/xfs-linux.git, but it's not necessary to cc linux-xfs
with that, since most of those patches are still under development
and/or working their way through patch review.

--D

> 
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 02:38:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:33:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:08:38PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > (just FYI for the possible performance impact of disabling large folios,
> > > > our config, as attached, set default N to XFS_LARGE_FOLIOS)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Greeting,
> > > > 
> > > > FYI, we noticed a -91.7% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > commit: 345a4666a721a81c343186768cdd95817767195f ("xfs: disable large folios except for developers")
> > > 
> > > Say what? I've never seen that change go past on a public list...
> > > 
> > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git xfs-5.20-merge
> > > 
> > > Oh, it's in a developer's working tree, not something that has been
> > > proposed for review let alone been merged.
> > 
> > Correct, djwong-dev has a patch so that I can disable multipage folios
> > so that I could get other QA work done while willy and I try to sort out
> > the generic/522 corruption problems.
> > 
> > > So why is this report being sent to lkml, linux-xfs, etc as if it
> > > was a change merged into an upstream tree rather than just the
> > > developer who owns the tree the commit is in?
> > 
> > I was wondering that myself.
> > 
> > --D
> > 
> > > -Dave.
> > > -- 
> > > Dave Chinner
> > > david@fromorbit.com