On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 01:21:56PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:56:17PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
> > > With that fixed, you'll have a head page that you can use for testing,
> > > which means you don't need to test PageCompound() (because you know the
> > > page
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 02:56:17PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > So you're calling page_is_secretmem() on a struct page without having
> > a refcount on it. That is definitely not allowed. secretmem seems to
> > be full of these
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:42:18AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> > page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
>
> Uhh ...
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 12:36:19PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Well, most if the -4.2% of the performance regression kbuild reported were
> due to repeated compount_head(page) in page_mapping(). So the whole point
> of this patch is to avoid calling page_mapping().
It's quite ludicrous how many
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:42:18AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
> page_is_secretmem() called from gup_pte_range() (inlined by gup_pgd_range):
Uhh ... you're calling it in the wrong place!
On 19.04.21 12:14, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:40:56AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike
On 19.04.21 11:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
due
On 19.04.21 11:36, Mike Rapoport wrote:
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 11:15:02AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: Mike Rapoport
> >
> > Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
> > due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
>
On 19.04.21 10:42, Mike Rapoport wrote:
From: Mike Rapoport
Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
memory areas".
The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused
From: Mike Rapoport
Kernel test robot reported -4.2% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops
due to commit "mm: introduce memfd_secret system call to create "secret"
memory areas".
The perf profile of the test indicated that the regression is caused by
page_is_secretmem() called from
12 matches
Mail list logo
