[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 00/20] Speculative page faults
Hi Andrew,

On 26/09/2017 01:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 09:27:43 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Laurent Dufour
>> <> wrote:
>>> Despite the unprovable lockdep warning raised by Sergey, I didn't get any
>>> feedback on this series.
>>> Is there a chance to get it moved upstream ?
>> what is the status ?
>> We're eagerly looking forward for this set to land,
>> since we have several use cases for tracing that
>> will build on top of this set as discussed at Plumbers.
> There has been sadly little review and testing so far :(
> I'll be taking a close look at it all over the next couple of weeks.
> One terribly important thing (especially for a patchset this large and
> intrusive) is the rationale for merging it: the justification, usually
> in the form of end-user benefit.
> Laurent's [0/n] provides some nice-looking performance benefits for
> workloads which are chosen to show performance benefits(!) but, alas,
> no quantitative testing results for workloads which we may suspect will
> be harmed by the changes(?). Even things as simple as impact upon
> single-threaded pagefault-intensive workloads and its effect upon
> CONFIG_SMP=n .text size?

I forgot to mention in my previous email the impact on the .text section.

Here are the metrics I got :

.text size UP SMP Delta
4.13-mmotm 8444201 8964137 6.16%
'' +spf 8452041 8971929 6.15%
Delta 0.09% 0.09%

No major impact as you could see.


> If you have additional usecases then please, spell them out for us in
> full detail so we can better understand the benefits which this
> patchset provides.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 14:30    [W:0.119 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site