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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220822001737.4120417-1-shakeelb@google.com> <20220822001737.4120417-4-shakeelb@google.com>
 <YwNe3HBxzF+fWb2n@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CALvZod5YGVSTvsg25P6goqyGEY21eVnahsXcs2BGsp6OXxLwsg@mail.gmail.com>
 <YwOfP/6PtS8BxNhz@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <YwOfP/6PtS8BxNhz@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 22 Aug 2022 09:07:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CALvZod5mgn6eUaCBV3bNJKA8k_sOAYs5QKyX7at+2OW_+5GNGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] memcg: increase MEMCG_CHARGE_BATCH to 64
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Roman Gushchin <roman.gushchin@linux.dev>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Michal_Koutn=C3=BD?= <mkoutny@suse.com>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil@google.com>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        Cgroups <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 8:22 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon 22-08-22 08:09:01, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 3:47 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [...]
> > >
> > > > To evaluate the impact of this optimization, on a 72 CPUs machine, we
> > > > ran the following workload in a three level of cgroup hierarchy with top
> > > > level having min and low setup appropriately. More specifically
> > > > memory.min equal to size of netperf binary and memory.low double of
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > a similar feedback to the test case description as with other patches.
> >
> > What more info should I add to the description? Why did I set up min
> > and low or something else?
>
> I do see why you wanted to keep the test consistent over those three
> patches. I would just drop the reference to the protection configuration
> because it likely doesn't make much of an impact, does it? It is the
> multi cpu setup and false sharing that makes the real difference. Or am
> I wrong in assuming that?
>

No, you are correct. I will cleanup the commit message in the next version.