On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> writes: > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Michal Hocko <mho...@kernel.org> writes: > >> > >> > On Wed 27-04-16 11:15:56, kernel test robot wrote: > >> >> FYI, we noticed vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression with the > >> >> following commit: > >> > > >> > Could you be more specific what the test does please? > >> > >> The sub-testcase of vm-scalability is swap-w-rand. An RAM emulated pmem > >> device is used as a swap device, and a test program will allocate/write > >> anonymous memory randomly to exercise page allocation, reclaiming, and > >> swapping in code path. > > > > Can I download the test with the setup to play with this? > > There are reproduce steps in the original report email. > > To reproduce: > > git clone > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wfg/lkp-tests.git > cd lkp-tests > bin/lkp install job.yaml # job file is attached in this email > bin/lkp run job.yaml > > > The job.yaml and kconfig file are attached in the original report email.
Thanks for the instructions. My bad I have overlooked that in the initial email. I have checked the configuration file and it seems rather hardcoded for a particular HW. It expects a machine with 128G and reserves 96G!4G which might lead to different amount of memory in the end depending on the particular memory layout. Before I go and try to recreate a similar setup, how stable are the results from this test. Random access pattern sounds like rather volatile to be consider for a throughput test. Or is there any other side effect I am missing and something fails which didn't use to previously. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
