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: <202210181535.7144dd15-yujie.liu@intel.com> <87edv4r2ip.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <Y1DNQaoPWxE+rGce@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <871qr3nkw2.fsf@yhuang6-desk2.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <366045a27a96e01d0526d63fd78d4f3c5d1f530b.camel@surriel.com>
 <Y1GCYXGtEVZbcv/5@dev-arch.thelio-3990X> <Y4RX+JZLddDHrLuQ@dev-arch.thelio-3990X>
 <e919e5a3-1118-043e-8bbd-5ee35f2ab411@leemhuis.info> <07adee081a70c2b4b44d9bf93a0ad3142e091086.camel@surriel.com>
 <20221201132237.c55c4bd07ba44463b146882e@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20221201132237.c55c4bd07ba44463b146882e@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Dec 2022 13:44:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHbLzkpH3StOAP3jnR1ALO9dpz43j8zOR88+fj4iwCRYsnt3=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mm] f35b5d7d67: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -95.5% regression
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        kernel test robot <yujie.liu@intel.com>, lkp@lists.01.org,
        lkp@intel.com, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        feng.tang@intel.com, zhengjun.xing@linux.intel.com,
        fengwei.yin@intel.com, Nathan Chancellor <nathan@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:22 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 01 Dec 2022 15:29:41 -0500 Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 19:33 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker.
> > >
> > > On 28.11.22 07:40, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > > Hi Rik,
> > >
> > > I wonder what we should do about below performance regression. Is
> > > reverting the culprit now and reapplying it later together with a fix
> > > a
> > > viable option? Or was anything done/is anybody doing something
> > > already
> > > to address the problem and I just missed it?
> >
> > The changeset in question speeds up kernel compiles with
> > GCC, as well as the runtime speed of other programs, due
> > to being able to use THPs more. However, it slows down kernel
> > compiles with clang, due to ... something clang does.
> >
> > I have not figured out what that something is yet.
> >
> > I don't know if I have the wrong version of clang here,
> > but I have not seen any smoking gun at all when tracing
> > clang system calls. I see predominantly small mmap and
> > unmap calls, and nothing that even triggers 2MB alignment.
>
> 2.8% speedup for gcc is nice.  Massive slowdown in the malloc banchmark
> and in LLVM/clang is very bad - we don't know what other userspace will
> be so affected.
>
> So I think we revert until this is fully understood.

+1

>
>