Re: [drm/mgag200] 913ec479bb: vm-scalability.throughput 26.2% improvement

2020-08-30 Thread Feng Tang
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 08:06:04PM +0200, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > > Hello Thomas, > > > > Did drm changes really impact anon-cow-seq-hugetlb performance? > > > > My change c0d0381ade79 ("hugetlbfs: use i_mmap_rwsem for more pmd sharing > > synchronization") caused a -33.4% regression of anon-co

Re: [drm/mgag200] 913ec479bb: vm-scalability.throughput 26.2% improvement

2020-08-29 Thread Thomas Zimmermann
Hi Am 27.08.20 um 16:56 schrieb Mike Kravetz: > On 8/27/20 2:16 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: >> Hi >> >> Am 26.08.20 um 10:58 schrieb kernel test robot: >>> Greeting, >>> >>> FYI, we noticed a 26.2% improvement of vm-scalability.throughput due to >>> commit: >> >> I guess this resolves the once-m

Re: [drm/mgag200] 913ec479bb: vm-scalability.throughput 26.2% improvement

2020-08-27 Thread Mike Kravetz
On 8/27/20 2:16 AM, Thomas Zimmermann wrote: > Hi > > Am 26.08.20 um 10:58 schrieb kernel test robot: >> Greeting, >> >> FYI, we noticed a 26.2% improvement of vm-scalability.throughput due to >> commit: > > I guess this resolves the once-measured performance penalty of similar > magnitude. But

Re: [drm/mgag200] 913ec479bb: vm-scalability.throughput 26.2% improvement

2020-08-27 Thread Thomas Zimmermann
Hi Am 26.08.20 um 10:58 schrieb kernel test robot: > Greeting, > > FYI, we noticed a 26.2% improvement of vm-scalability.throughput due to > commit: I guess this resolves the once-measured performance penalty of similar magnitude. But do we really understand these tests? When I sent out patches