Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751626Ab1DNUIV (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:08:21 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:38993 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997Ab1DNUIU (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Apr 2011 16:08:20 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=WRA1ShTu8pofl1q+YOGITfihZ2I7kld3t70/RhQDTtg30Vo9A4IimuUA4YrSuj0w3U E719RRlSIvc5v4LKpicXvCCkBrErVuFJ5N2VKbh1WUOjWY4XQq0wmItaUpTh3Ly+25gh Jb1QLM9Tpq3moLUENESmESWNCMulLXEJVbNdU= Subject: Re: 2.6.38 page_test regression From: raz ben yehuda To: Andrea Arcangeli Cc: lkml , riel@redhat.com, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Mel Gorman In-Reply-To: <20110414150925.GD15707@random.random> References: <1302692638.15225.14.camel@raz.scalemp.com> <20110413125146.GR29444@random.random> <1302703579.17536.1.camel@raz.scalemp.com> <20110413172127.GB5734@random.random> <1302781754.5098.13.camel@raz.scalemp.com> <20110414150925.GD15707@random.random> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:07:23 +0300 Message-ID: <1302811643.10051.8.camel@raz.scalemp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.0 (2.32.0-2.fc14) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1816 Lines: 50 bah. Mel is correct. I did mean page_test ( in my defense it is in the msg ). Here some more information: 1. I manage to lower the regression to 2 sha1's: 32dba98e085f8b2b4345887df9abf5e0e93bfc12 to 71e3aac0724ffe8918992d76acfe3aad7d8724a5. though I had to remark wait_split_huge_page for the sake of compilation. up to 32dba98e085f8b2b4345887df9abf5e0e93bfc12 there is no regression. 2. I booted 2.6.37-rc5 you gave me. same regression is there. raz On Thu, 2011-04-14 at 17:09 +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 02:49:14PM +0300, raz ben yehuda wrote: > > Hey Andrea > > Me again. I managed to ftrace ( function graph ) the two kernels. I used > > 2.6.37 and 2.6.39-rc3. The bellow is example for sys_brk calls traces > > from each kernel. As you can see, there is no "single smoking gun" > > here. > > > > The vm functions durations increased as a whole. > > I repeated the tests from sha1 4e9f64c42d0ba5eb0c78569435ada4c224332ce4 > > compared to sha1 152c9ccb75548c027fa3103efa4fa4e19a345449 and it is > > consistent. ~13% performance decrease. > > > > > Can you see any relation to thp that might causes this degradation ? > > With compaction and THP off I don't see how it could change > anything. > > But can you try the THP-33 tag of my aa.git tree, that was based on > 2.3.37-rc5 so it'll rule out the whole THP patchset if it doesn't > regress compared to 2.6.37-rc5 vanilla. > > git clone --reference linux-2.6 git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git > git checkout THP-33 > > Thanks, > Andrea -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/