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:   Tue, 22 Nov 2022 18:03:03 +0800
From:   Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>
To:     Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
CC:     <oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev>, <lkp@intel.com>,
        Zirong Lang <zlang@redhat.com>, <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        <ying.huang@intel.com>, <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        <zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com>, <fengwei.yin@intel.com>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple
 allocations
Message-ID: <Y3yeVzzt5WIIHfhm@xsang-OptiPlex-9020>
References: <20221109034802.40322-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com>
 <202211220854.48dad6fd-oliver.sang@intel.com>
 <Y3wm8hwPMXcFNjiO@B-P7TQMD6M-0146.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <Y3wm8hwPMXcFNjiO@B-P7TQMD6M-0146.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount: 1
X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0: =?iso-8859-1?Q?2f6Tu24i43IZeKRmcv4tzOIrcXq+p4JlQB8XOe7P7fD7L7/dJXQ+Xh9RSM?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?EtoleEVqR3ZCjhAnVYRrZ99tZ22xyhY4n08BnZjd+p6Hx53rHO7EiziuAV?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?oRsRQolS0iXmk/1FOR8picqmNSiAIscP9qdG6gJtmdVX9V+7qAQ+iW6wEV?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?/aDc+cPyCQTm7kcvg83GwACagczjTMH391bnqkhJD/cgjquCND4Uw4c0Q1?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?yrEZVMr8M6kzTO0OF2jlSRRysd8ixdU4benOie7I3k4ErkXuFlponwxynB?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?dQpJXyCejt83TuTEaEeBdYDfC9ut6KeW5tCIVjMkFfZbTRNOT/Fr2/ZTZN?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?ockdOXx7RphNgoQEyCm8px9QdU2wnlv+iO0O9chIvScWTpy2VtL23Ad7XS?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?nhAq/rlnTdLiZD4FeGQe5ZVRjpvTKwRCSUzAU7oSRPZO8ME3UPLwLvx49e?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?cEseN8dbyRXo9vObvSWgMlfvHNc9M9oTo9s6wMrUVyZfLu9CoER/ybo5HV?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?9uOq61szwnx1butupSD0T9n0FvTB2SlOtSKQOLMTpG5IMwfVMrzAzGlK3a?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?yqm6s3gZc7St70CcW717v+bD62ywCOjML9NH72OagBaSKLs0mcCorF3nop?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?SKiCwTvhVFOpvNxna0vPT/0FYFqLcVPWvDde3AnoQ0rNF20WtNSAmU24H6?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?3rVlve67ZgwIupIFFGHUyvRM0qja9kyQ4EnQgN/6WxUoW3fcMHrlE98F6D?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?SyQKadtGRN7Y2btC7XSJ8v/G4WxgNINmP377ekEyV9NLi+MbqvjV80GnhW?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?N68R1UaoMg1oql03x5pJaUFuWdmdc8SSnnqfAFvSAN8b347KKmi/WcAk5R?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?/QlkOXTRck4QKYm0AztJNXrGsFfpj0PiZraNc6JQ4dBK8WxQEdwf1DOBiF?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?UqNDCIkdutuW2XTrwH9JuY74JkjUCAZIRLaxKidSFpj1M060tnNhkvK2xo?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?H633iKmsy/zaVJ6NsMgxHRe4OLpM7EaR6MSL5rcbvOUXASIoV5zDmznObX?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?XmYER8/BmpyXEHMq67/6GhpEGhSeZU/DerufN6bCQI64eKVapctRCFpeaF?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?fu3nJvSYzb4R+Iq8KJlxMqUGuIzWag+A905eIIY8PYi/jL9vjXlNJmCwGg?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?QzoXEHXvU/vmk63veRadUSkxgpfvPvtKlccccax6dxoaHU7C6GL3MpkCOu?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?cFGJNdjD99CBKIItEWFrLG2jfTKuW7yfKwzKkDH/G/vOAVALf5fgGpqJvR?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?nNEOQXJHlT+uRFNry9FLmoThJu9Oq8A625LkeI/GCSy+5AQTy7OBgSBy5s?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?NS43tnrbZk6hTcXStOMFh4Rn4M31EIsoaUVOlmOEf/G1u18SE495iRQdT6?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?holEwrrw8aQDgnKCovHKjSCpMcKYLmNv8hX9B1bdvnNrz5V82Jaf4fwwgd?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?fGDUFIBv+1KdUrgtHyFHpJNoWWtATkPUurJEMJ2KP4bxW7d4AR8I2ievWb?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Xri0wTs8k+Xi1LEFc5q8jDEtnHt1VfiPcRaO4xaKGaeQ8hd4WtqUB3Y2qx?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?XOOagCO23x326lq5WSNd8gvxur2OjpRzuZ/Xt0s+NdWN9ifAfVXgqRYQ?=
 =?iso-8859-1?Q?=3D=3D?=
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c6c5dcb0-1644-4ca0-b9a7-08dacc70c4c3
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: PH8PR11MB6779.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2022 10:03:14.9682
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 46c98d88-e344-4ed4-8496-4ed7712e255d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-MailboxType: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-UserPrincipalName: Z3/xW6Wieq2tpYBdD3+QyU3Iy7ruZEVcZcRDSbqmS2eOU50oOn88zE04hfNYsXZ58TgvLAJ93quaUEpvud6dog==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: IA1PR11MB6516
X-OriginatorOrg: intel.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
        DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
        SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
        lindbergh.monkeyblade.net
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

hi Gao Xiang,

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:33:38AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 09:09:34AM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > please be noted we noticed Gao Xiang and Dave Chinner have already had lots of
> > discussion around this patch, which seems there is maybe new version later.
> > we just sent out this report FYI the possible performance impact of this patch.
> > 
> > 
> > Greeting,
> > 
> > FYI, we noticed a -15.1% regression of fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec due to commit:
> 
> Thanks for your report!
> 
> At a glance, I have no idea why this commit can have performance
> impacts.  Is the result stable?

in our tests, the result is quite stable.
     45589           -15.1%      38687 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec

and detail data is as below:
for this commit:
  "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [
    39192.224368,
    39665.690567,
    38980.680601,
    37298.99538,
    37483.256377,
    39504.606569
  ],

for parent:
  "fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec": [
    45381.458009,
    45314.376204,
    45724.688965,
    45751.955937,
    45614.323267,
    45747.216475
  ],


if you still have concern, we could rerun tests. Thanks!


> 
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
> 
> > 
> > 
> > commit: ada76f94c5b32c1828955d70f692b111a9ec2d33 ("[PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations")
> > url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Gao-Xiang/xfs-account-extra-freespace-btree-splits-for-multiple-allocations/20221109-114953
> > base: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/fs/xfs/xfs-linux.git for-next
> > patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20221109034802.40322-1-hsiangkao@linux.alibaba.com/
> > patch subject: [PATCH] xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations
> > 
> > in testcase: fxmark
> > on test machine: 128 threads 2 sockets Intel(R) Xeon(R) Platinum 8358 CPU @ 2.60GHz (Ice Lake) with 128G memory
> > with following parameters:
> > 
> > 	disk: 1SSD
> > 	media: ssd
> > 	test: MWCM
> > 	fstype: xfs
> > 	directio: directio
> > 	cpufreq_governor: performance
> > 
> > test-description: FxMark is a filesystem benchmark that test multicore scalability.
> > test-url: https://github.com/sslab-gatech/fxmark
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag
> > | Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
> > | Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202211220854.48dad6fd-oliver.sang@intel.com
> > 
> > 
> > Details are as below:
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > 
> > 
> > To reproduce:
> > 
> >         git clone https://github.com/intel/lkp-tests.git
> >         cd lkp-tests
> >         sudo bin/lkp install job.yaml           # job file is attached in this email
> >         bin/lkp split-job --compatible job.yaml # generate the yaml file for lkp run
> >         sudo bin/lkp run generated-yaml-file
> > 
> >         # if come across any failure that blocks the test,
> >         # please remove ~/.lkp and /lkp dir to run from a clean state.
> > 
> > =========================================================================================
> > compiler/cpufreq_governor/directio/disk/fstype/kconfig/media/rootfs/tbox_group/test/testcase:
> >   gcc-11/performance/directio/1SSD/xfs/x86_64-rhel-8.3/ssd/debian-11.1-x86_64-20220510.cgz/lkp-icl-2sp5/MWCM/fxmark
> > 
> > commit: 
> >   4eb559dd15 ("Merge tag 'refcount-cow-domain-6.1_2022-10-31' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux into xfs-6.1-fixesA")
> >   ada76f94c5 ("xfs: account extra freespace btree splits for multiple allocations")
> > 
> > 4eb559dd15671cca ada76f94c5b32c1828955d70f69 
> > ---------------- --------------------------- 
> >          %stddev     %change         %stddev
> >              \          |                \  
> >     260.92           +90.8%     497.93 ? 13%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.idle_sec
> >      29.10           +91.5%      55.74 ? 14%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.idle_util
> >       9.11 ?  2%     -17.6%       7.51 ?  8%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.iowait_sec
> >       1.02 ?  2%     -17.3%       0.84 ?  8%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.iowait_util
> >     617.96           -38.8%     378.15 ? 19%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.sys_sec
> >      68.93           -38.6%      42.31 ? 18%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.sys_util
> >       1.80 ?  4%     -18.5%       1.47 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.user_sec
> >       0.20 ?  4%     -18.2%       0.16 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.user_util
> >    3363535           -29.6%    2369575 ?  7%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works
> >      67262           -29.6%      47384 ?  7%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_18_directio.works/sec
> >       0.01 ?111%  +51925.0%       3.47 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.idle_sec
> >       0.01 ?111%  +52382.0%       6.99 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.idle_util
> >       0.23 ? 14%   +1481.9%       3.64 ? 14%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.iowait_sec
> >       0.46 ? 14%   +1496.0%       7.33 ? 14%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.iowait_util
> >       0.58           +20.9%       0.70 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.irq_sec
> >       1.15           +21.9%       1.40 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.irq_util
> >       0.37 ?  2%     +18.9%       0.44 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.softirq_sec
> >       0.74 ?  2%     +20.0%       0.89 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.softirq_util
> >      47.70           -15.4%      40.33 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.sys_sec
> >      95.24           -14.7%      81.24 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.sys_util
> >       1.20 ?  5%     -11.0%       1.07 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.user_sec
> >       2.40 ?  6%     -10.2%       2.15 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.user_util
> >    2639345           -15.6%    2228369 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works
> >      52786           -15.6%      44567 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_1_directio.works/sec
> >       4.11 ?  3%    +254.5%      14.56 ? 18%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.idle_sec
> >       4.10 ?  3%    +255.9%      14.60 ? 18%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.idle_util
> >       1.42 ?  6%    +435.2%       7.57 ?  6%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.iowait_sec
> >       1.41 ?  6%    +437.2%       7.59 ?  6%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.iowait_util
> >       0.82           +20.2%       0.99 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.irq_sec
> >       0.82           +20.7%       0.99 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.irq_util
> >       0.52 ?  4%     +30.0%       0.67 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.softirq_sec
> >       0.52 ?  4%     +30.5%       0.67 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.softirq_util
> >      91.86           -18.6%      74.82 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.sys_sec
> >      91.73           -18.3%      74.99 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.sys_util
> >       1.42 ?  4%     -18.7%       1.15 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.user_sec
> >       1.42 ?  4%     -18.4%       1.16 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.user_util
> >    3159498           -23.2%    2425056 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works
> >      63189           -23.3%      48486 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_2_directio.works/sec
> >     413.60 ?  4%    +103.5%     841.63 ? 20%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.idle_sec
> >      22.94 ?  4%    +103.9%      46.78 ? 20%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.idle_util
> >       1364           -31.6%     933.33 ? 19%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.sys_sec
> >      75.70           -31.5%      51.85 ? 18%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.sys_util
> >       1.82 ?  4%     -11.7%       1.60 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.user_sec
> >       0.10 ?  4%     -11.5%       0.09 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.user_util
> >    2850816           -22.9%    2197955 ?  7%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.works
> >      57006           -22.9%      43943 ?  7%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_36_directio.works/sec
> >      54.22           +63.5%      88.65 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.idle_sec
> >      27.33           +64.7%      45.02 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.idle_util
> >       6.53           +36.1%       8.89 ?  8%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.iowait_sec
> >       3.29           +37.1%       4.51 ?  8%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.iowait_util
> >       1.37           +21.7%       1.67 ?  3%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.irq_sec
> >       0.69           +22.6%       0.85 ?  3%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.irq_util
> >       0.64           +20.3%       0.77 ?  3%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.softirq_sec
> >       0.32           +21.2%       0.39 ?  3%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.softirq_util
> >     134.06           -28.6%      95.67 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.sys_sec
> >      67.58           -28.1%      48.59 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.sys_util
> >       1.55 ?  2%     -18.4%       1.26 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.user_sec
> >       0.78 ?  2%     -17.8%       0.64 ?  5%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.user_util
> >    3262962           -26.9%    2383952        fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.works
> >      65256           -26.9%      47670        fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_4_directio.works/sec
> >     489.98 ?  3%    +160.6%       1277 ? 24%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.idle_sec
> >      18.11 ?  3%    +161.0%      47.27 ? 24%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.idle_util
> >       2185           -36.3%       1391 ? 22%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.sys_sec
> >      80.77           -36.2%      51.49 ? 22%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.sys_util
> >    2448443           -24.0%    1859708 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.works
> >      48963           -24.1%      37175 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_54_directio.works/sec
> >     614.60 ?  2%     +88.5%       1158 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.idle_sec
> >      17.04 ?  2%     +88.6%      32.13 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.idle_util
> >       6.44 ?  4%     -14.8%       5.48 ?  9%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.iowait_sec
> >       0.18 ?  4%     -14.8%       0.15 ? 10%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.iowait_util
> >       2953           -18.5%       2407 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.sys_sec
> >      81.89           -18.5%      66.77 ?  4%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.sys_util
> >    2279692           -15.1%    1935171 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works
> >      45589           -15.1%      38687 ?  2%  fxmark.ssd_xfs_MWCM_72_directio.works/sec
> >     934.32           -10.3%     838.20        fxmark.time.elapsed_time
> >     934.32           -10.3%     838.20        fxmark.time.elapsed_time.max
> >   43490089           -20.8%   34446960 ?  3%  fxmark.time.file_system_outputs
> >     128601 ?  3%     -31.6%      87922 ?  4%  fxmark.time.involuntary_context_switches
> >      31.83           -17.8%      26.17 ?  5%  fxmark.time.percent_of_cpu_this_job_got
> >     301.24           -26.5%     221.43 ?  5%  fxmark.time.system_time
> >     841264 ?  3%     -11.2%     747133 ?  5%  fxmark.time.voluntary_context_switches
> >     989.01            -9.6%     893.57        uptime.boot
> >      54.77           +10.7%      60.61        iostat.cpu.idle
> >       5.31 ?  4%     +21.4%       6.45 ?  4%  iostat.cpu.iowait
> >      38.42           -18.0%      31.51 ?  2%  iostat.cpu.system
> >      55.66            +5.8       61.45        mpstat.cpu.all.idle%
> >       5.31 ?  5%      +1.2        6.46 ?  4%  mpstat.cpu.all.iowait%
> >       0.60 ?  2%      -0.1        0.53        mpstat.cpu.all.soft%
> >      36.50            -6.6       29.87 ?  3%  mpstat.cpu.all.sys%
> >   26496967           -20.9%   20947493 ?  2%  numa-numastat.node0.local_node
> >   26548700           -20.8%   21022864 ?  2%  numa-numastat.node0.numa_hit
> >    3332141 ?  6%     -22.1%    2595871 ?  4%  numa-numastat.node1.local_node
> >    3400117 ?  5%     -22.4%    2638708 ?  5%  numa-numastat.node1.numa_hit
> >       2211            +1.0%       2233        perf-stat.i.minor-faults
> >       0.39 ?  9%      +0.1        0.44 ?  3%  perf-stat.i.node-load-miss-rate%
> >       2211            +1.0%       2233        perf-stat.i.page-faults
> >       2209            +1.0%       2230        perf-stat.ps.minor-faults
> >       2209            +1.0%       2230        perf-stat.ps.page-faults
> >      53.83           +11.5%      60.00        vmstat.cpu.id
> >       5430 ?  2%     -14.0%       4668 ?  3%  vmstat.io.bi
> >     123556            -8.3%     113294 ?  2%  vmstat.io.bo
> >   11181852           -16.7%    9318758 ?  2%  vmstat.memory.cache
> >       7.67 ?  6%     -19.6%       6.17 ? 11%  vmstat.procs.r
> >    9247281           -15.1%    7847381        meminfo.Cached
> >    3299044 ?  2%     -21.5%    2591082 ?  2%  meminfo.Dirty
> >    5715841 ?  2%     -24.4%    4320653 ?  3%  meminfo.Inactive
> >    5389224 ?  2%     -25.9%    3991807 ?  3%  meminfo.Inactive(file)
> >    1914390           -24.3%    1449759 ?  3%  meminfo.KReclaimable
> >      31406 ? 13%     -22.0%      24510 ?  7%  meminfo.KernelStack
> >   14111361           -16.6%   11775228 ?  2%  meminfo.Memused
> >    1914390           -24.3%    1449759 ?  3%  meminfo.SReclaimable
> >    1427015           -25.6%    1061962 ?  4%  meminfo.SUnreclaim
> >      18397 ?  2%      -8.4%      16846        meminfo.Shmem
> >    3341406           -24.8%    2511722 ?  3%  meminfo.Slab
> >   24035030           -18.6%   19557858 ?  2%  meminfo.max_used_kB
> >       1.23 ? 22%      +0.4        1.58 ? 18%  perf-profile.calltrace.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work.process_one_work.worker_thread.kthread.ret_from_fork
> >       0.76 ? 44%      -0.4        0.38 ? 74%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.rcu_sched_clock_irq
> >       0.09 ? 10%      -0.0        0.05 ? 47%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.mod_find
> >       0.10 ? 47%      +0.1        0.18 ? 26%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xfs_iext_lookup_extent
> >       0.17 ? 26%      +0.1        0.25 ? 16%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.s_show
> >       0.05 ? 82%      +0.1        0.13 ? 46%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.timekeeping_advance
> >       0.05 ? 82%      +0.1        0.13 ? 46%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.update_wall_time
> >       0.21 ? 21%      +0.1        0.31 ? 20%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.vsnprintf
> >       0.20 ? 26%      +0.1        0.30 ? 17%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.seq_printf
> >       1.23 ? 22%      +0.4        1.58 ? 18%  perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work
> >       0.08 ? 14%      -0.0        0.04 ? 72%  perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.mod_find
> >       0.14 ? 26%      +0.1        0.22 ? 16%  perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.xlog_cil_push_work
> >       0.13 ? 37%      +0.1        0.21 ? 22%  perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.__folio_end_writeback
> >       1339 ?  6%     -12.1%       1177 ?  6%  numa-meminfo.node0.Active
> >       1317 ?  4%     -10.6%       1177 ?  6%  numa-meminfo.node0.Active(anon)
> >    2938921 ?  2%     -22.3%    2284083 ?  2%  numa-meminfo.node0.Dirty
> >    4950896 ?  2%     -25.3%    3699254 ?  2%  numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive
> >    4806022 ?  2%     -27.0%    3510366 ?  3%  numa-meminfo.node0.Inactive(file)
> >    1663428 ?  2%     -25.0%    1246833 ?  3%  numa-meminfo.node0.KReclaimable
> >      15585 ?  4%     -12.4%      13655 ?  4%  numa-meminfo.node0.KernelStack
> >    1663428 ?  2%     -25.0%    1246833 ?  3%  numa-meminfo.node0.SReclaimable
> >    1224137 ?  2%     -25.5%     912586 ?  4%  numa-meminfo.node0.SUnreclaim
> >      15785 ?  5%     -12.5%      13811 ?  4%  numa-meminfo.node0.Shmem
> >    2887566           -25.2%    2159421 ?  3%  numa-meminfo.node0.Slab
> >     358435 ?  3%     -14.3%     307335 ?  6%  numa-meminfo.node1.Dirty
> >     764404 ?  6%     -18.6%     622071 ? 10%  numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive
> >     582651 ?  2%     -17.3%     482089 ?  9%  numa-meminfo.node1.Inactive(file)
> >     250653 ? 10%     -18.9%     203397 ? 13%  numa-meminfo.node1.KReclaimable
> >    3410163 ? 54%     -26.4%    2508459 ? 68%  numa-meminfo.node1.MemUsed
> >     250653 ? 10%     -18.9%     203397 ? 13%  numa-meminfo.node1.SReclaimable
> >     202812 ? 17%     -26.2%     149763 ?  5%  numa-meminfo.node1.SUnreclaim
> >     453467 ?  9%     -22.1%     353161 ?  8%  numa-meminfo.node1.Slab
> >       0.71 ? 14%     -21.5%       0.56 ? 14%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.h_nr_running.avg
> >       1405 ? 55%     -68.3%     445.08 ? 27%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.load_avg.avg
> >    5023746           -33.8%    3324248 ? 13%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.avg
> >    5080937           -33.2%    3395209 ? 12%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.max
> >    4683128           -31.3%    3217873 ? 13%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.min_vruntime.min
> >       0.59 ?  9%     -17.4%       0.49 ? 18%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.nr_running.avg
> >     650.51 ? 13%     -32.3%     440.38 ?  9%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.avg
> >       1007 ?  8%     -18.5%     821.27 ?  6%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.max
> >     476.07 ? 17%     -38.7%     291.80 ? 16%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.runnable_avg.min
> >     517.96 ?  5%     -20.3%     412.57 ?  9%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.avg
> >     352.69 ?  5%     -26.1%     260.66 ? 14%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_avg.min
> >     113.13 ?  9%     -26.8%      82.85 ? 15%  sched_debug.cfs_rq:/.util_est_enqueued.stddev
> >      18547 ?  4%      -9.5%      16791 ?  3%  sched_debug.cpu.curr->pid.max
> >       1549 ? 11%   +1106.2%      18692 ?123%  sched_debug.cpu.max_idle_balance_cost.stddev
> >       0.70 ? 16%     -25.1%       0.52 ? 18%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_running.avg
> >     862357 ?  4%     -16.3%     722142 ?  3%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.avg
> >    1440368 ?  6%     -22.2%    1120203 ?  6%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.max
> >     756963 ?  4%     -14.6%     646359 ?  5%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.min
> >     150642 ? 10%     -33.8%      99651 ? 18%  sched_debug.cpu.nr_switches.stddev
> >   17687949           -23.3%   13563229 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirtied
> >     734675 ?  2%     -22.3%     570784 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_dirty
> >    1201580 ?  2%     -27.0%     877113 ?  3%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_inactive_file
> >      15586 ?  4%     -12.4%      13655 ?  4%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_kernel_stack
> >       3945 ?  5%     -12.5%       3453 ?  4%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_shmem
> >     415866 ?  2%     -25.1%     311497 ?  3%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_reclaimable
> >     306030 ?  2%     -25.5%     228011 ?  4%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> >   17687949           -23.3%   13563229 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_written
> >    1201580 ?  2%     -27.0%     877113 ?  3%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_inactive_file
> >     734697 ?  2%     -22.3%     570821 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.nr_zone_write_pending
> >   26548703           -20.8%   21023488 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.numa_hit
> >   26496970           -20.9%   20948116 ?  2%  numa-vmstat.node0.numa_local
> >    2316618           -20.7%    1836559 ?  5%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirtied
> >      89623 ?  3%     -14.3%      76800 ?  6%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_dirty
> >     145701 ?  2%     -17.3%     120486 ?  9%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_inactive_file
> >      62668 ? 10%     -18.9%      50828 ? 13%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_reclaimable
> >      50710 ? 17%     -26.2%      37434 ?  5%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> >    2316618           -20.7%    1836559 ?  5%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_written
> >     145701 ?  2%     -17.3%     120486 ?  9%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_inactive_file
> >      89584 ?  3%     -14.3%      76792 ?  6%  numa-vmstat.node1.nr_zone_write_pending
> >    3400024 ?  5%     -22.4%    2639087 ?  5%  numa-vmstat.node1.numa_hit
> >    3332048 ?  6%     -22.1%    2596249 ?  4%  numa-vmstat.node1.numa_local
> >      77508            +1.2%      78432        proc-vmstat.nr_anon_pages
> >   20004568           -23.0%   15399788 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.nr_dirtied
> >     825597 ?  2%     -21.4%     648654 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.nr_dirty
> >    2311462           -15.1%    1961741        proc-vmstat.nr_file_pages
> >   29390035            +2.0%   29973527        proc-vmstat.nr_free_pages
> >    1346949 ?  2%     -25.9%     997847 ?  3%  proc-vmstat.nr_inactive_file
> >      31402 ? 13%     -21.9%      24514 ?  7%  proc-vmstat.nr_kernel_stack
> >       4599 ?  2%      -8.4%       4211        proc-vmstat.nr_shmem
> >     478540           -24.3%     362476 ?  3%  proc-vmstat.nr_slab_reclaimable
> >     356646           -25.6%     265413 ?  4%  proc-vmstat.nr_slab_unreclaimable
> >   20004568           -23.0%   15399788 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.nr_written
> >    1346949 ?  2%     -25.9%     997847 ?  3%  proc-vmstat.nr_zone_inactive_file
> >     825584 ?  2%     -21.4%     648681 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.nr_zone_write_pending
> >   29951284           -21.0%   23664558 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.numa_hit
> >   29831574           -21.1%   23546349 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.numa_local
> >   51777954           -21.0%   40906350 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.pgalloc_normal
> >       5920 ?  2%      -7.6%       5472 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.pgdeactivate
> >    2342027            -8.5%    2142047        proc-vmstat.pgfault
> >   51819442           -21.0%   40950599 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.pgfree
> >    5071045 ?  3%     -22.9%    3908046 ?  4%  proc-vmstat.pgpgin
> >  1.153e+08           -17.9%   94738236        proc-vmstat.pgpgout
> >     141611            -6.3%     132656        proc-vmstat.pgreuse
> >   10386182 ?  3%     -24.2%    7877205 ?  4%  proc-vmstat.pgrotated
> >   36803772           -24.1%   27916664 ?  2%  proc-vmstat.slabs_scanned
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Disclaimer:
> > Results have been estimated based on internal Intel analysis and are provided
> > for informational purposes only. Any difference in system hardware or software
> > design or configuration may affect actual performance.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 0-DAY CI Kernel Test Service
> > https://01.org/lkp
> > 
> >