Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
Message-ID: <f7f7b396f60e2a9d22e5d5ab36f78507138d8650.camel@surriel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] hugetlbfs: replace hugetlb_vma_lock with
 invalidate_lock
From:   Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>
To:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@meta.com,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        muchun.song@linux.dev, leit@meta.com, willy@infradead.org,
        Ray Fucillo <Ray.Fucillo@intersystems.com>,
        Jacklin Kotikian <Jacklin.Kotikian@intersystems.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Oct 2023 09:47:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20231017005236.GA236970@monkey>
References: <20231006040020.3677377-1-riel@surriel.com>
         <20231006040020.3677377-5-riel@surriel.com>
         <20231017005236.GA236970@monkey>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 (3.46.4-1.fc37) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: riel@surriel.com
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 2023-10-16 at 17:52 -0700, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> 
> The Combined faults number drops by over 50%.  This is not nearly as
> dramatic
> as the changes originally seen.  However, I do expect that there will
> be
> a noticeable performance regression.  Ray may be able to help running
> real
> workloads on real applications and database.
> 
> I suggest we hold off on adding this change until further, more real
> world
> analysis can be performed.  The simplification of the code is nice,
> but I
> would hate to regress any workloads.

Agreed. Thank you for running those tests.

Andrew, would it be possible to drop patch 4/4 from -mm?


-- 
All Rights Reversed.