On 1/29/2021 2:08 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 05:09:05PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 15:52:40 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
[ . . . ]
I test the patch 4 times, no warning appears in the kernel log.
Thank you so much Zhengjun!
And the overall
On 1/27/2021 5:21 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jan 2021 16:04:25 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/26/2021 3:39 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 26 Jan 2021 10:45:21 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/25/2021 5:29 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 25 Jan 2021 16:31:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1
On 1/26/2021 3:39 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 26 Jan 2021 10:45:21 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/25/2021 5:29 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 25 Jan 2021 16:31:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/22/2021 3:59 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:48:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1
On 1/26/2021 11:00 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Fri 15-01-21 15:23:07, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi,
There is currently a bit of a debate about the kernel direct map. Does using
2M/1G pages aggressively for the kernel direct map help performance? Or, is
it an old optimization which
On 1/25/2021 5:29 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On 25 Jan 2021 16:31:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/22/2021 3:59 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:48:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/21/2021 12:00 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:46:33 +0800 Oliver Sang wrote
On 1/22/2021 3:59 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2021 09:48:32 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 1/21/2021 12:00 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:46:33 +0800 Oliver Sang wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:24:32PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:45:11 +0800
On 1/21/2021 12:00 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 21:46:33 +0800 Oliver Sang wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 03:24:32PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
Thu, 14 Jan 2021 15:45:11 +0800
FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
commit:
On 1/11/2021 5:58 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 10:32:47PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -18.4% regression of reaim.jobs_per_min due to commit:
commit: 2b0d3d3e4fcfb19d10f9a82910b8f0f05c56ee3e ("percpu_ref: reduce memory
footprint of percpu_ref
Hi,
There is currently a bit of a debate about the kernel direct map. Does
using 2M/1G pages aggressively for the kernel direct map help
performance? Or, is it an old optimization which is not as helpful on
modern CPUs as it was in the old days? What is the penalty of a kernel
feature that
On 1/12/2021 11:45 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:36:14PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -18.3% regression of fio.write_iops due to commit:
commit: e076ab2a2ca70a0270232067cd49f76cd92efe64 ("btrfs: shrink delalloc pages
instead of full
Hi Waiman,
Do you have time to look at this? Thanks.
As you describe in commit: 617f3ef95177840c77f59c2aec1029d27d5547d6
("locking/rwsem: Remove reader optimistic spinning"), The patch that
disables reader optimistic spinning shows reduced performance at lightly
loaded cases, so for
On 12/11/2020 12:14 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 04:18:59PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
FYI, we noticed a -1.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to
commit:
commit: 2558aacff8586699bcd248b406febb28b0a25de2 ("sched/hotplug: Ensure only
per-cpu kthreads
On 11/27/2020 5:34 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Xing Zhengjun (2020-11-26 01:44:55)
On 11/25/2020 4:47 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Oliver Sang (2020-11-19 07:20:18)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:27:13PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
Hi,
Could you add intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org
On 11/25/2020 4:47 AM, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Oliver Sang (2020-11-19 07:20:18)
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:27:13PM +0200, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
Hi,
Could you add intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org into reports going
forward.
Quoting kernel test robot (2020-11-11 17:58:11)
Greeting,
On 11/23/2020 4:04 PM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote:
Hi
Am 22.11.20 um 15:18 schrieb kernel test robot:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed the following commit (built with gcc-9):
commit: 6a1b34c0a339fdc75d7932ad5702f2177c9d7a1c ("drm/fb-helper: Move
damage blit code and its setup into separate
On 11/17/2020 12:19 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 05:55:44PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -9.1% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to
commit:
commit: be5d0a74c62d8da43f9526a5b08cdd18e2bbc37a ("mm: memcontrol: switch to
On 11/7/2020 4:55 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:21:39PM +0800, Rong Chen wrote:
we compared the tmpfs.ops_per_sec: (363 / 103.02) between this commit and
parent commit.
Thanks! I see about a 50% hit on my system, and this patch restores the
performance. Can you
On 11/6/2020 2:37 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 12:29 AM Xing Zhengjun
wrote:
Rong - mind testing this? I don't think the zero-page _should_ be
something that real loads care about, but hey, maybe people do want to
do things like splice zeroes very efficiently..
I
On 11/5/2020 2:29 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 1:15 AM kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -95.6% regression of stress-ng.vm-splice.ops_per_sec due to
commit:
commit: a308c71bf1e6e19cc2e4ced31853ee0fc7cb439a ("mm/gup: Remove enfornced COW
On 11/2/2020 6:02 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 02-11-20 17:53:14, Rong Chen wrote:
On 11/2/20 5:27 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
On Mon 02-11-20 17:15:43, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -22.7% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to
commit:
commit:
Hi Josef,
I re-test it in v5.10-rc2, the regression still existed. Do you
have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
On 10/13/2020 2:30 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Josef,
I re-test in v5.9, the regression still existed. Do you have time to
take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/15
On 10/22/2020 9:19 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
- On Oct 21, 2020, at 9:54 PM, Xing Zhengjun zhengjun.x...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
[...]
In fact, 0-day just copy the will-it-scale benchmark from the GitHub, if
you think the will-it-scale benchmark has some issues, you can
contribute your
On 10/20/2020 9:14 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
- On Oct 19, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Xing Zhengjun zhengjun.x...@linux.intel.com
wrote:
On 10/7/2020 10:50 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
- On Oct 2, 2020, at 4:33 AM, Rong Chen rong.a.c...@intel.com wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed
On 10/19/2020 11:24 PM, Philip Li wrote:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 09:27:32AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
Hi,
I pointed out an issue with the will-it-scale context_switch1 test run by the
0day bot on
October 7, 2020, and got no reply.
Thanks Mathieu for the feedback, we had added it to
On 10/7/2020 10:50 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
- On Oct 2, 2020, at 4:33 AM, Rong Chen rong.a.c...@intel.com wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -37.0% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to
commit:
commit: bdfcae11403e5099769a7c8dc3262e3c4193edef ("[RFC PATCH 2/3] sched:
Hi Josef,
I re-test in v5.9, the regression still existed. Do you have time to
take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/15/2020 11:21 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Josef,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/12/2020 2:11 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we
On 10/13/2020 11:01 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 10/12/20 6:59 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 10/13/2020 1:40 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 10/11/20 10:29 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Mike,
I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed. It is almost the
same as 34ae204f1851. Do
On 10/13/2020 1:40 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 10/11/20 10:29 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Mike,
I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed. It is almost the
same as 34ae204f1851. Do you have time to look at it? Thanks.
Thank you for testing.
Just curious, did you apply
On 10/12/2020 4:18 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:20:26PM +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Mel,
It is a revert commit caused the regression, Do you have a plan to fix
it? Thanks. I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed.
The revert caused a *performance
Hi Mel,
It is a revert commit caused the regression, Do you have a plan to
fix it? Thanks. I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed.
=
Hi Mike,
I re-test it in v5.9-rc8, the regression still existed. It is almost
the same as 34ae204f1851. Do you have time to look at it? Thanks.
=
On 6/26/2020 5:33 AM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 6/22/20 3:01 PM, Mike Kravetz wrote:
On 6/21/20 5:55 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -33.4% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
commit: c0d0381ade79885c04a04c303284b040616b116e ("hugetlbfs: use
On 7/22/2020 2:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/15/2020 7:04 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
Hello Xing,
On 4/7/20 1:30 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -60.5% regression of stress-ng.fiemap.ops_per_sec
due to commit:
commit
On 6/17/2020 12:28 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:02:24AM +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Paul,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
I do not see how this change could affect anything that isn't directly
using RCU Tasks Trace. Yes, there is some
On 7/24/2020 10:44 AM, Rong Chen wrote:
On 7/21/20 11:59 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 3:15 AM kernel test robot
wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -9.5% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops
due to commit:
commit: c738fbabb0ff62d0f9a9572e56e65d05a1b34c6a
On 7/9/2020 8:43 PM, Giovanni Gherdovich wrote:
On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 10:58 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 6/12/2020 4:11 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
I test the regression, it still existed in v5.7. Do you have time
to take a look at this? Thanks.
Ping...
Hello,
I
On 7/7/2020 2:30 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 03:49:52PM +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 6/10/2020 11:07 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Darrick,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
Ping...
Yes, that decrease is the expected end result of making
On 7/15/2020 7:04 PM, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
Hello Xing,
On 4/7/20 1:30 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -60.5% regression of stress-ng.fiemap.ops_per_sec
due to commit:
commit: d3b6f23f71670007817a5d59f3fbafab2b794e8c ("ext4: move
ext4_fiemap to use iomap
On 6/12/2020 4:11 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
I test the regression, it still existed in v5.7. Do you have time
to take a look at this? Thanks.
Ping...
=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs
On 6/10/2020 11:07 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Darrick,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
Ping...
On 6/6/2020 11:48 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -33.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
commit
On 6/18/2020 4:24 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 10:45:01 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 6/18/2020 12:25 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 à 16:57:25 (+0200), Vincent Guittot a écrit :
Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 à 08:30:21 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit
On 6/18/2020 8:35 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 04:45, Xing Zhengjun
wrote:
This bench forks a new thread for each and every new step. But a newly forked
threads start with a load_avg and a runnable_avg set to max whereas the threads
are running shortly before
On 6/17/2020 10:57 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 à 08:30:21 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/16/2020 2:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Xing,
Le mardi 16 juin 2020 à 11:17:16 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/15/2020 4:10 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi
On 6/16/2020 10:45 PM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:57:50PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -11.5% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
commit: 1431d4d11abb265e79cd44bed2f5ea93f1bcc57b ("mm: base LRU balancing on an
On 6/18/2020 12:25 AM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 à 16:57:25 (+0200), Vincent Guittot a écrit :
Le mercredi 17 juin 2020 à 08:30:21 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/16/2020 2:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Xing,
Le mardi 16 juin 2020 à 11:17:16 (+0800), Xing
On 6/16/2020 2:54 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Xing,
Le mardi 16 juin 2020 à 11:17:16 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/15/2020 4:10 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Xing,
Le lundi 15 juin 2020 à 15:26:59 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/12/2020 7:06 PM, Hillf Danton wrote
Hi Ritesh,
I test, the regression still existed in v5.8-rc1. Do you have time
to take a look at it? Thanks.
On 4/14/2020 1:49 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Thanks for your quick response, if you need any more test information
about the regression, please let me known.
On 4/13/2020 6:56 PM
On 6/15/2020 11:10 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2020 10:10:41 +0200 Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le lundi 15 juin 2020 15:26:59 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a crit :
On 6/12/2020 7:06 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:36:49 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
...
I apply the patch
On 6/15/2020 4:10 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Hi Xing,
Le lundi 15 juin 2020 à 15:26:59 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
On 6/12/2020 7:06 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:36:49 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
...
--- a/kernel/sched/fair.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c
Hi Paul,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/15/2020 4:57 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -12.3% regression of will-it-scale.per_thread_ops due to
commit:
commit: 276c410448dbca357a2bc3539acfe04862e5f172 ("rcu-tasks: Split
On 6/15/2020 1:18 PM, Tao Zhou wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 03:59:31PM +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi,
I test the regression, it still existed in v5.7. If you have any fix
for it, please send it to me, I can verify it. Thanks.
When busiest group is group_fully_busy and local
On 6/12/2020 11:19 PM, Vincent Guittot wrote:
Le vendredi 12 juin 2020 à 14:36:49 (+0800), Xing Zhengjun a écrit :
Hi Vincent,
We test the regression still existed in v5.7, do you have time to look at
it? Thanks.
The commit 070f5e860ee2 moveis some cases from the state "grou
On 6/12/2020 7:06 PM, Hillf Danton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 14:36:49 +0800 Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Vincent,
We test the regression still existed in v5.7, do you have time to
look at it? Thanks
Hi Josef,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/12/2020 2:11 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -9.1% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
commit: c75e839414d3610e6487ae3145199c500d55f7f7 ("btrfs: kill the subvol_srcu")
, 2020-04-16 at 14:10 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
1567c3e346("x86, sched: Add support for frequency invariance") has
been merged into Linux mainline v5.7-rc1 now. Do you have time to take a
look at this? Thanks.
Apologies, this slipped under my radar. I'm on
Hi,
I test the regression, it still existed in v5.7. If you have any fix
for it, please send it to me, I can verify it. Thanks.
=
Hi Vincent,
We test the regression still existed in v5.7, do you have time to
look at it? Thanks.
=
tbox_group/testcase/rootfs/kconfig/compiler/runtime/nr_task/debug-setup/test/cpufreq_governor/ucode:
On 6/11/2020 6:53 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
On Thu, 2020-06-11 at 15:10 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 6/10/2020 9:53 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
ucode: 0x52c
Does the following change resolve it?
diff --git a/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
b/security/integrity/ima/ima_main.c
index
On 6/10/2020 9:53 PM, Mimi Zohar wrote:
Hi Xing,
On Wed, 2020-06-10 at 11:21 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Mimi,
Do you have time to take a look at this? we noticed a 3.7%
regression of boot-time.dhcp and a 84.2% regression of
stress-ng.icache.ops_per_sec. Thanks.
On 6/3/2020 5:11
Hi Darrick,
Do you have time to take a look at this? Thanks.
On 6/6/2020 11:48 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a -33.6% regression of aim7.jobs-per-min due to commit:
commit: a5949d3faedf492fa7863b914da408047ab46eb0 ("xfs: force writes to delalloc
regions to
Hi Mimi,
Do you have time to take a look at this? we noticed a 3.7%
regression of boot-time.dhcp and a 84.2% regression of
stress-ng.icache.ops_per_sec. Thanks.
On 6/3/2020 5:11 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 3.7% regression of boot-time.dhcp due to commit:
On 8/30/2019 8:43 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 8/7/2019 3:56 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping
Hi Steve,
On 8/13/2019 11:04 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 09:04:28 +0800
Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Steve,
Could you help to review? Thanks.
Thanks for the ping. Yes, I'll take a look at it. I'll be pulling in a
lot of patches that have queued up.
-- Steve
Could you
On 8/7/2019 3:56 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
ping...
ping...
In testcase: fsmark
Hi Steve,
Could you help to review? Thanks.
On 7/13/2019 12:05 AM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Hi Zhengjun,
On Fri, 2019-07-12 at 09:53 +0800, Zhengjun Xing wrote:
Add "gfp_t" support in synthetic_events, then the "gfp_t" type
parameter in some functions can be traced.
Prints the gfp flags as hex
On 7/24/2019 1:17 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
ping...
In testcase: fsmark
on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690
On 7/12/2019 2:42 PM, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
I attached perf-profile part big changes, hope it is useful for
analyzing the issue.
Ping...
In testcase: fsmark
on test machine: 40 threads Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2690 v2 @ 3.00GHz
with 384G memory
with following parameters
+5.35.60 ± 3%
perf-profile.children.cycles-pp.sock_sendmsg
1.19 ± 5% +0.51.68 ± 3%
perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.get_page_from_freelist
6.10+3.29.27 ± 4%
perf-profile.self.cycles-pp.memcpy_erms
On 7/9/2019 10:39 AM, Xing Zhengjun wrote
Hi Tom,
On 7/11/2019 11:42 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Hi Zhengjun,
The patch itself looks fine to me, but could you please create a v3
with a couple changes to the commit message? I noticed you dropped
your original commit message - please add it back and combine with part
of mine, as below.
Hi Tom,
On 7/11/2019 3:51 AM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
Hi Zhengjun,
On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:55 +0800, Zhengjun Xing wrote:
Add "gfp_t" support in synthetic_events, then the "gfp_t" type
parameter in some functions can be traced.
Signed-off-by: Zhengjun Xing
---
kernel/trace/trace_events_hist.c
Hi Trond,
On 7/8/2019 7:44 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
I've asked several times now about how to interpret your results. As far
as I can tell from your numbers, the overhead appears to be entirely
contained in the NUMA section of your results.
IOW: it would appear to be a scheduling overhead
ec
(nr_threads= 8)
306.08 -15.5% 258.68fsmark.files_per_sec
(nr_threads=16)
498.34 -22.7% 385.33fsmark.files_per_sec
(nr_threads=32)
527.29 -22.6% 407.96fsmark.files_per_sec
(nr_threads=64)
On 5/31/2019 11:27 AM, X
On 5/31/2019 3:10 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 15:20 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
On 5/30/2019 10:00 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Hi Xing,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI
On 5/30/2019 10:00 AM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
Hi Xing,
On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 09:35 +0800, Xing Zhengjun wrote:
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 16.0% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to
commit:
commit
Hi Trond,
On 5/20/2019 1:54 PM, kernel test robot wrote:
Greeting,
FYI, we noticed a 16.0% improvement of fsmark.app_overhead due to commit:
commit: 0472e476604998c127f3c80d291113e77c5676ac ("SUNRPC: Convert socket page send
code to use iov_iter()")
On 3/22/2018 8:03 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:29:42PM +0800, Zhengjun Xing wrote:
USB3 hubs don't support global suspend.
USB3 specification 10.10, Enhanced SuperSpeed hubs only support selective
suspend and resume, they do not support global suspend/resume where the
hub
On 3/22/2018 8:03 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 01:29:42PM +0800, Zhengjun Xing wrote:
USB3 hubs don't support global suspend.
USB3 specification 10.10, Enhanced SuperSpeed hubs only support selective
suspend and resume, they do not support global suspend/resume where the
hub
gt;; Ingo Molnar
<mi...@kernel.org>; Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>; Xing, Zhengjun
<zhengjun.x...@intel.com>; Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org>;
sta...@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: Handle NULL formats in
hold_module_trace_bprintk_format()
I agree with you. You can also add me to the "Signed-off-by".
Best Regards,
Zhengjun
-Original Message-
From: Steven Rostedt [mailto:rost...@goodmis.org]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 9:53 PM
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds ; Ingo Molnar
; Andrew Mor
79 matches
Mail list logo
