On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 02:51:42PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > > Honestly, normally if I were to get a report about "52% regression"
> > > for a commit that is supposed to optimize something, I'd just revert
> > > the commit as a case of "ok, that optimization clearly didn't work".
> > >
> > > But
Hi Linus,
Some updates on this, we found the regression is related with the
percpu stuff change and BTRFS, though the exact relation is unknown yet.
Some details below.
+ Michal who helped providing useful links for checking it.
+ Josef Bacik, for this is BTRFS related
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 01:42:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:30 PM kernel test robot
> wrote:
> >
> > FYI, we noticed a -52.4% regression of
> > fxmark.hdd_btrfs_DWAL_63_bufferedio.works/sec
>
> That's quite the huge regression.
>
> But:
>
> > due to
On Mon 15-03-21 13:42:50, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> If somebody can actually figure out what happened there, that would be
> good, but for now it goes into my "archived as a random outlier"
> folder.
This is not something new. We have seen reports like that in the past
already. In many cases there w
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 11:30 PM kernel test robot
wrote:
>
> FYI, we noticed a -52.4% regression of
> fxmark.hdd_btrfs_DWAL_63_bufferedio.works/sec
That's quite the huge regression.
But:
> due to commit: f3344adf38bd ("mm: memcontrol: optimize per-lruvec stats
> counter memory usage")
That'
5 matches
Mail list logo
