From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751535AbcGNQyH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:54:07 -0400
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]:32902 "EHLO
	mail-oi0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751276AbcGNQyE (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 14 Jul 2016 12:54:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20160713230238.GU7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20160713202657.GW30154@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713203944.GC29670@mtj.duckdns.org> <20160713205102.GZ30909@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160713210315.GO7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160713210526.GF29670@mtj.duckdns.org>
 <20160713211841.GQ7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160713214238.GA15996@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <CALAqxLWoMVzUuSJM0uKXO25s4toXMceLFdKngzGNsAX7-+q0FA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713221750.GR7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <CALAqxLU880FGWM+sCha1LAi8KCtzreG2jrMEPU92PSHy2tOOJg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160713230238.GU7094@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2016 09:54:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUDcwTzi=VmOtoCVX12bq51mRS0_M=3NkQxcCkhNPyVeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Severe performance regression w/ 4.4+ on Android due to cgroup
 locking changes
To: Paul McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>, Colin Cross <ccross@google.com>,
        Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Paul E. McKenney
<paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 03:39:37PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>
>> But otherwise both patches look great and are working well!
>>
>> Do you mind marking them both for stable 4.4+?
>
> OK, looks like it does qualify in the "fix a notable performance or
> interactivity issue" category.
>
>> Tested-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
>>
>> Also, do make sure Dmitry gets the reported-by credit for the first patch.
>
> Done!  The updated first patch is below, and the second will follow.

So just as a heads up, while this patch *greatly* improved the
situation, apparently the occasional 7ms spikes (again, much better
then 80ms!) still seen are causing trouble when compared w/ the 4.1 or
earlier kernels (which I think kept things sub-ms - Dmitry, please
correct me).

So I wanted to dampen my enthusiasm a touch for this, as there may yet
further improvements needed.  I'll try to get some more info on this
as soon as I have details.

thanks
-john