Re: [xfs] 345a4666a7: vm-scalability.throughput -91.7% regression

[Oliver Sang <oliver.sang@intel.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2376 bytes --]


(removed public list)

Hi Darrick, Hi Dave,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 02:38:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> 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...

we actually not only monitor mailing list, we also monitor public repos,
such like this report is upon
   https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git

and currently it seems hard to us to differentiate if new changes in a repo
will go to a public list. any suggestion?

> > 
> > > 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.

we monitor all branches on
   https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git
now.

any branch pattern you could kindly share with us that we could ignore?
or should we only send reports to limited person (such like repo owner, patch
autor, etc.) for some particular branches?

it's kind of hard for us to determine from branch names for now, since
this repo has lots of branches:

djwong-xfs$ git branch | wc -l
295

> 
> > 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.

sorry for this, if you could give us some guidances based on above questions,
we could refine our report process to avoid this happen again. Thanks a lot!

> 
> --D
> 
> > -Dave.
> > -- 
> > Dave Chinner
> > david(a)fromorbit.com