On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 07:33:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 11:08:38PM +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > 
> > (just FYI for the possible performance impact of disabling large folios,
> > our config, as attached, set default N to XFS_LARGE_FOLIOS)
> > 
> > 
> > Greeting,
> > 
> > FYI, we noticed a -91.7% regression of vm-scalability.throughput due to commit:
> > 
> > 
> > commit: 345a4666a721a81c343186768cdd95817767195f ("xfs: disable large folios except for developers")
> 
> Say what? I've never seen that change go past on a public list...
> 
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git xfs-5.20-merge
> 
> Oh, it's in a developer's working tree, not something that has been
> proposed for review let alone been merged.

Correct, djwong-dev has a patch so that I can disable multipage folios
so that I could get other QA work done while willy and I try to sort out
the generic/522 corruption problems.

> So why is this report being sent to lkml, linux-xfs, etc as if it
> was a change merged into an upstream tree rather than just the
> developer who owns the tree the commit is in?

I was wondering that myself.

--D

> -Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com