On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:56:42PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 09:51:48PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote: > > Unfortunately, as > > I'm about to travel, I didn't attempt a revert and a test comparing 4.18, > > 4.19 and 4.20-rc1 is a few hours away so this could potentially be fixed > > already but I didn't spot any obvious Fixes commit. > > > > Still here a few hours later but the regression still appears to exist > in mainline and the comparison report is below. While there are slightly > differences, the regressions are well outside multiples of the stddev and > co-efficient of variance so I'm fairly sure it's real. The one positive > thing is that the actual standard deviation is lower so the results are > more stable but that is a thin silver lining. >
Yeah unfortunately this was expected, though in my tests I didn't see as harsh of a regression. I'll start working on making the regression suck less, thanks for running this down Mel, Josef
