From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2911463543427474636==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Oliver Sang To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [xfs] 345a4666a7: vm-scalability.throughput -91.7% regression Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:34:38 +0800 Message-ID: List-Id: --===============2911463543427474636== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable (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 foli= os, > > > 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, pat= ch 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 question= s, we could refine our report process to avoid this happen again. Thanks a lot! > = > --D > = > > -Dave. > > -- = > > Dave Chinner > > david(a)fromorbit.com --===============2911463543427474636==--