Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri 29-04-16 20:54:13, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > >

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri 29-04-16 20:54:13, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > >

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > > > rework oom detection" commit and later should

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:29:36AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > > > rework oom detection" commit and later should

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > > rework oom detection" commit and later should make it much more > > resistant to failures for higher (!costly)

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Fri 29-04-16 16:59:37, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > > rework oom detection" commit and later should make it much more > > resistant to failures for higher (!costly)

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > rework oom detection" commit and later should make it much more > resistant to failures for higher (!costly) orders. So I would definitely > encourage you to retest

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 01:21:35PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > All of them are order-2 and this was a known problem for "mm, oom: > rework oom detection" commit and later should make it much more > resistant to failures for higher (!costly) orders. So I would definitely > encourage you to retest

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu 28-04-16 17:45:23, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 04/28/2016 04:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 28-04-16 13:17:08, Aaron Lu wrote: [...] > >> I have the same doubt too, but the results look really stable(only for > >> commit 0da9597ac9c0, see below for more explanation). > > > > I cannot seem

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu 28-04-16 17:45:23, Aaron Lu wrote: > On 04/28/2016 04:57 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Thu 28-04-16 13:17:08, Aaron Lu wrote: [...] > >> I have the same doubt too, but the results look really stable(only for > >> commit 0da9597ac9c0, see below for more explanation). > > > > I cannot seem

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu 28-04-16 13:17:08, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > > > >> Michal Hocko

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Thu 28-04-16 13:17:08, Aaron Lu wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > > > >> Michal Hocko writes: > > > >> > > > >> > On

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > > >> Michal Hocko writes: > > >> > > >> > On Wed 27-04-16

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:17:19AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > > Michal Hocko writes: > > > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > > >> Michal Hocko writes: > > >> > > >> > On Wed 27-04-16 11:15:56, kernel test robot wrote: > > >> >>

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Michal Hocko writes: > >> > >> > On Wed 27-04-16 11:15:56, kernel test robot wrote: > >> >> FYI, we noticed

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed 27-04-16 16:44:31, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko writes: > > > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > >> Michal Hocko writes: > >> > >> > On Wed 27-04-16 11:15:56, kernel test robot wrote: > >> >> FYI, we noticed vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression with the > >> >>

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

Michal Hocko writes: > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Michal Hocko 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: >> >

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

Michal Hocko writes: > On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: >> Michal Hocko 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

On Wed 27-04-16 16:20:43, Huang, Ying wrote: > Michal Hocko 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

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

Michal Hocko 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.

Re: [LKP] [lkp] [mm, oom] faad2185f4: vm-scalability.throughput -11.8% regression

Michal Hocko 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